top of page

Trespass (IPC)

Trespass (IPC)
Trespass (IPC)


Section 441 -  Criminal trespass

“Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property,

or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence,

is said to commit "criminal trespass".”

Meaning of Criminal Trespass

Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of criminal trespass, which occurs when an individual enters or remains on property belonging to another without lawful permission, with the intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person in possession of the property.

This provision aims to safeguard the rights of property owners and ensure that they can enjoy their property without disturbance from unauthorized individuals.

Criminal trespass can be categorized into two main components:

  • Unlawful Entry: This occurs when someone enters onto private property without any right or permission, either explicitly granted or implied. The individual lacks lawful authority to be on the premises and does so in violation of the property owner's rights.

  • Unlawful Presence: In this scenario, the individual initially enters the property lawfully but subsequently remains there with a criminal intention, such as to intimidate, insult, or commit an offence. Despite having initially lawful access, the individual's continued presence becomes unlawful due to their malicious intent.

Ingredients of Criminal Trespass

  • ‘Whoever enters’: The offence of criminal trespass requires an actual physical entry by the accused onto the property of another individual. Without such a tangible act of entry, no trespass can be deemed to have occurred. This means that the accused must physically intrude into the private property of the victim for the offence to be constituted. 

A notable legal precedent highlighting this requirement is the case of State of Calcutta vs Abdul Sukar, where the court ruled that constructive entry by a servant does not constitute entry under Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code.

The court reasoned that although there was no legal possession, there existed factual possession.  This principle underscores the importance of actual physical intrusion onto the property for the offence of criminal trespass to be established under the law.

  • Property: The term "property" as delineated in Section 441 encompasses both movable and immovable assets. Therefore, wrongful entry into someone's car or any other movable property carries the same legal consequences as trespassing into their residence. 

For instance, in the case of Dhannonjoy v Provat Chandra Biswas, the accused forcefully seized and absconded with the boat belonging to the possessor after assaulting him. Despite the property being movable, the court deemed this action as constituting criminal trespass.

However, it's important to note that the term "property" does not extend to intangible assets or items that cannot be physically touched, such as patent rights. Therefore, acts involving such intangible assets would not fall within the purview of criminal trespass under this section.

  • Possession of another: In order to establish criminal trespass, it is essential that the property in question is under the possession of the victim rather than the trespasser. Ownership of the property by the victim is not a prerequisite; mere possession is adequate to substantiate charges of criminal trespass against the intruder.

Moreover, the presence of the property owner or possessor at the time of the trespassing is not mandatory for the offence to be deemed as such. Even in the absence of the owner or possessor, the act of trespassing can still be established if the intrusion is carried out with the intent to annoy or intimidate.

For instance, delivering unsolicited love letters to a girl's residence against her wishes would constitute criminal trespass, regardless of whether the girl was present at home at the time of delivery.

  • Intention: The crux of criminal trespass lies in the intention of the accused parties. If it can be established that their intent was not to insult, harm, or annoy the owners or possessors of the property, then the act does not amount to criminal trespass. Intent plays a pivotal role in determining the commission of this offence; without a dominant motive to commit harm or annoyance, there is no criminal trespass.

In assessing the intent behind the entry, the aim of the trespasser at the time of entry serves as the guiding principle. For instance, in the case of Punjab National Bank Ltd v All India Punjab National Bank Employees’ Federation, the court ruled that employees on strike entering the bank to pressure management into conceding their demands did not constitute criminal trespass, as there was no intent to harm or annoy superior officers.

However, if the strikers had entered private offices with the aim of causing annoyance, it would be deemed criminal trespass.

Moreover, it is essential to establish that the accused had an actual intention, not just a probable one. This principle was underscored in the case of Ramjan Misrty v Emperor.

Mere knowledge that one's entry could cause annoyance is insufficient; there must be clear evidence of an intention to commit an offence, intimidate, insult, or annoy for criminal trespass to be established.

Section 447.   Punishment for criminal trespass

Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Aggravated forms of criminal trespass

The offence of criminal trespass can manifest in various forms, each carrying its own set of circumstances, penalties, and degrees of severity. Factors such as the timing of the trespass, its purpose, and the nature of the property trespassed upon contribute to its classification and the corresponding punishment.

One aggravated form of criminal trespass is house trespass, wherein an individual unlawfully enters a property where someone resides or stores belongings.

This form of trespass poses a significant threat to the safety and security of individuals and their habitation. House trespass is governed by Section 442 of the IPC.

House trespass can be further exacerbated in certain circumstances. For instance, if the trespass is committed in a manner intended to avoid detection, it is known as lurking house-trespass, regulated by Section 443 of the IPC.

Additionally, if the trespass involves violence or forceful entry, it is termed house-breaking and is governed by Section 445 of the IPC.

The severity of house trespass can also be influenced by the time of its commission. Trespassing at night is considered more serious than during the daytime. Housebreaking during the nighttime is specifically addressed under Section 446 of the IPC.


Section 442 of the IPC delineates house-trespass as the act of criminally trespassing by entering or remaining in any building, tent, or vessel designated as a human dwelling, place of worship, or a site for property custody.

It's noteworthy that a human dwelling need not be the permanent residence of the defendant; temporary locations such as schools or railway platforms also fall under this category.

However, for a structure to qualify as a human dwelling, it must possess walls or some form of security; a mere fence does not suffice. 

This offence represents an aggravated form of criminal trespassing. While every instance of house-trespass constitutes criminal trespass, the reverse is not true.

House-trespass occurs against the possession of a property and cannot transpire if the defendant is not in actual possession of the property.

Under Section 448 of the IPC, a defendant found guilty of house-trespass may face imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, a fine of INR 1,000 or less, or both.

Lurking house-trespass

Section 443 of the IPC addresses an aggravated form of house-trespass, termed as lurking house-trespass. This offence occurs when an individual commits house-trespass and takes measures to conceal it from anyone who possesses the authority to exclude or remove the trespasser from the premises in question. 

In the case of Prem Bahadur Rai v State, the court emphasised that to invoke Section 443, the accused must actively take steps to hide their presence.

Therefore, the essential elements of lurking house-trespass comprise trespassing, committing house-trespass, and concealing the trespass from someone with the authority to exclude the trespasser.

For instance, lurking behind a tree in a porch constitutes an act falling within the purview of this section.

According to Section 453 of the IPC, a trespasser found guilty under this section may face imprisonment for up to two years, along with a fine determined by the court.

Lurking house-trespass by night

Section 444 of the IPC addresses an intensified version of lurking house-trespass, specifically focusing on trespass committed during the night. This provision encompasses any act of lurking house-trespass occurring after sunset and before sunrise.

Offenders found guilty of this offence face penalties as stipulated in Section 456 of the IPC, which include imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, in addition to a fine.


Housebreaking, an intensified form of house-trespass, involves forcefully entering someone's residence. Section 445 of the IPC delineates six methods by which housebreaking can occur:

1. By creating a passage oneself.

2. Through any passage not commonly used by individuals other than the intruder.

3. Through any passage opened specifically for committing housebreaking, which the occupant did not intend to be open.

4. By opening a lock.

5. By using criminal force during entrance or exit.

6. By entering or exiting through a passage secured against such entry or exit.

The first three methods involve entry through unconventional means, while the latter three entail the use of force. The term "fasteners" indicates more than mere closure; simply pushing door shutters shut does not constitute housebreaking.

For an act to be deemed housebreaking under Section 445 of the IPC, the following elements must be present:

1. Trespass.

2. House-trespass.

3. Entry by the trespasser using any of the six prescribed methods.

In the Pullabhotla Chinniah case, the court determined that breaking into a cattle-shed containing agricultural tools constitutes housebreaking.

Additionally, actions such as creating a hole in a wall, entering through a window, or assaulting a guard to gain entry all qualify as housebreaking.

Offenders found guilty of housebreaking may face imprisonment for up to two years, along with a fine, as stipulated in Section 453 of the IPC.

Housebreaking by night

When housebreaking occurs between sunset and sunrise, it constitutes an aggravated form of the offence, regulated by Section 446 of the IPC.

According to this provision, the offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, along with a fine, as outlined in Section 456 of the IPC.

Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property

Section 461 of the IPC addresses the act of dishonestly breaking open a receptacle containing property. This section penalises individuals who, with dishonest intent or the intention of committing mischief, break or open any receptacle or container used for storing property.

The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and triable by any magistrate. The punishment for this offence may extend up to two years, a fine, or both.

The essential elements of this offence include:

1. The presence of a closed container or receptacle.

2. The container containing property or the accused believing it contained property.

3. The accused intentionally breaking open the receptacle.

4. The accused acting dishonestly.

5. The accused acting with the intent to cause mischief.

The term "receptacle" encompasses all types of vessels, including safe boxes, chests, closed packages, rooms, warehouses, or godowns. The key requirement is that such a vessel must be closed by means of a chain, bolt, or fastened in any manner.

The offence is considered complete as soon as the receptacle is broken or unfastened with dishonest intent to steal or cause any other form of mischief.

0 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page