Entering School Premises Without Permission May Amount To 'House Trespass' Under IPC: Chhattisgarh High Court

Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal referred to Sections 452 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint); Section 442 (Definition of House-Trespass); and Section 441 (Criminal Trespass) of IPC and explained,

“From the conjoint reading of these three Sections it would clearly demonstrate that whoever criminally trespassed by entering into any building, tent or vessels used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place of worship or as a place for custody of the property, said to commit house trespass. There are three separate ingredients for house trespass i.e. (i) any building used as a human dwelling (ii) any building used as a place of worship (iii) any building used as a place for custody of the property. The school building would definitely cannot be a human dwelling house or place of worship but it can be considered to be a place for custody of the property where school furniture and other educational assets are being kept in safe custody.”

The observations were propounded in a case where an NSUI member (petitioner), along with his associates, allegedly entered the premises of Krishna Kids Academy and protested by hurling abuses and misbehaving with the female staff. This prompted the Administrator of the school (complainant) to lodge an official complaint. Consequently, the Trial Court framed charges against the petitioner under Sections of 452, 294 (Obscene acts) r/w 34 (common intention) of IPC. When the petitioner challenged the order before the revisional court, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court.

In his challenge, the petitioner argued that he was protesting against the illegal running of the school in contravention to the government circulars and guidelines. Arguing against the charge under Section 452, he submitted that school does not come under the definition of “dwelling house” and therefore the charge cannot be framed against him.

In contrast, the State argued that the statement/s of school's employees clearly demonstrated that the petitioner trespassed the school premises and hurled abuses. It further submitted that to frame charge against the accused persons, only prima facie ingredients are to be considered and trial court, after considering the entire material, framed the charge against the petitioner.

The Court observed that, "The School building was in exclusive possession of the complainant and the petitioner was not having any right to forceful enter into the premises under the possession of the complainant without their permission.”

Thus, noting that it did not find any infirmity with the framing of the charge under Section 452, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Details:

Case Number: CRMP No. 8 of 2026

Case Title: Vikas Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Click Here To Read/Download Order