Mischief
Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with mischief. Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriousl The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief.
Explanation 1.—It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not.
Explanation 2.—Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly.
Illustrations.
(a) A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z intending to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.
(b) A introduces water into an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes the ice to melt, intending wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.
(c) A voluntarily throws into a river a ring belonging to Z, with the intention of thereby causing wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.
(d) A, knowing that his effects are about to be taken in execution in order to satisfy a debt due from him to Z, destroys those effects, with the intention of thereby preventing Z from obtaining satisfaction of the debt, and of thus causing damage to Z. A has committed mischief.
(e) A having insured a ship, voluntarily causes the same to be cast away, with the intention of causing damage to the underwriters. A has committed mischief.
(f) A causes a ship to be cast away, intending thereby to cause damage to Z who has lent money on bottomry on the ship. A has committed mischief.
(g) A, having joint property with Z in a horse, shoots the horse, intending thereby to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.
(h) A causes cattle to enter upon a field belonging to Z, intending to cause and knowing that he is likely to cause damage to Z’s crop. A has committed mischief.
(2) Whoever commits mischief shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to any property including the property of Government or Local Authority shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
(4) Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of twenty thousand rupees and more but less than one lakh rupees shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(5) Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of one lakh rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
(6) Whoever commits mischief, having made preparation for causing to any person death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 324, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 425 Mischief Text carried over almost unchanged 94%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 5 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mischief. | Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Mischief causing loss or damage to any property including property of Government or Local Authority. | Imprisonment for 1 year, or fine, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Mischief causing loss or damage to the amount of twenty thousand rupees but less than 2 lakh rupees. | Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| Mischief causing loss or damage to the amount of one lakh rupees or upwards. | Imprisonment for 5 years, or fine, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| Mischief with preparation for causing to any person death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of wrongful restraint. | Imprisonment for 5 years, and fine. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith
Decided under Indian Penal Code 425, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Elected representatives cannot claim immunity from criminal law on grounds of parliamentary privilege. Acts of destruction of public property committed by MLAs during protest inside the legislative assembly are not protected under Article 194 of the Constitution as they do not constitute essential legislative functions or proceedings of the House. The Public Prosecutor's power to withdraw prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be exercised in furtherance of broad ends of public justice, and the court's supervisory function requires it to ensure that the application is made in good faith and does not suffer from improprieties or illegalities that would cause manifest injustice. Prior sanction of the Speaker is not required for prosecution of MLAs for offences committed within the assembly except where specifically mandated by statute such as Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The gravity of offence involving destruction of public property and its impact on public life must be considered when determining whether withdrawal of prosecution subserves administration of justice.
On this section: Definition of mischief; causing destruction of property with intent to cause wrongful loss or damage
-
V. Sivankutty vs The State of Kerala
Decided under Indian Penal Code 425, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Parliamentary privileges and immunities granted under Article 194 of the Constitution are functional in nature, designed to enable elected representatives to perform their legislative duties without hindrance. These privileges do not extend to criminal acts such as destruction of public property, and no elected representative can claim exemption from the application of criminal law. Acts of vandalism and destruction of public property committed within the precincts of the legislature are not protected by parliamentary privilege and can be prosecuted without prior sanction of the Speaker. The withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 CrPC must be evaluated not merely on the basis of good faith but also on whether it subserves the administration of justice and does not cause manifest injustice. In cases involving destruction of public property and breach of public trust by elected representatives, the court must scrutinize the gravity of the offence and its impact on public life before granting consent to withdrawal.
On this section: Sections 425 (mischief), 427 (mischief causing damage), 447 (criminal trespass), and 34 (common intention) were applied to the facts of destruction of public property and criminal trespass committed by the MLAs within the assembly premises
-
Kashiben Chhaganbhai Koli vs State of Gujarat
Decided under Indian Penal Code 425, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Wrongful dispossession of or interference with the enjoyment of rights over land by a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member constitutes an offense under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 without requiring the dispossession to be motivated by or 'related with the community' status of the victim; the plain language of the statute protects SC/ST members from all wrongful dispossession and interference with land rights. Destruction of standing crops on land through forcible tilling with tractors constitutes 'mischief' under Section 427 IPC when it causes loss or damage exceeding fifty rupees.
On this section: Definition of 'mischief' as an act done with intent to cause or knowing it is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person; includes destruction of property. Applied to establish that destruction of sugarcane stems by tractor constitutes mischief.
-
State vs Salman Khan& ORS.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 425, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Damage caused to wildlife, even if not calculable in monetary terms, constitutes loss to ecology and society at large. Therefore, provisions of Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code, specifically Section 149 IPC read with Section 141 IPC (Clause Thirdly covering 'other offence'), can be applied to offences under the Wildlife Protection Act when committed by an unlawful assembly. However, Sections 147 and 148 IPC (rioting and rioting with deadly weapons) cannot be applied to wildlife hunting as they require use of criminal force against persons, not animals. Criminal force under Section 349 IPC is limited to force causing motion or change of motion in another person.
On this section: Definition of mischief - Court held that damage to wildlife constitutes mischief as it results in loss to public and society through ecological damage
-
State vs Saif Ali
Decided under Indian Penal Code 425, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The provisions of Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code, specifically Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC, can be applied to offences under special laws like the Wildlife Protection Act, but only to the extent that the underlying offence falls within the scope of the specific IPC provision. Section 149 IPC can be applied to wildlife protection violations when committed by an unlawful assembly because hunting protected animals constitutes 'mischief' under Section 425 IPC, which falls within Clause Thirdly of Section 141 IPC's definition of unlawful assembly. However, Section 147 IPC (rioting) cannot be applied to wildlife hunting because rioting requires use of criminal force on persons, not animals. The definition of 'offence' under Section 40 IPC extends to special laws when the offence is punishable with imprisonment of six months or more, and damage to wildlife constitutes loss to the public through ecological harm, thereby satisfying the mischief definition.
On this section: Definition of mischief - Court held that damage to wild animals constitutes mischief as it causes loss to public/society through ecological damage
-
State vs Dushyant Singh
Decided under Indian Penal Code 425, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The provisions of Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code can be applied to offences under the Wildlife Protection Act to the extent that: (1) Section 147 (rioting) and Section 148 (rioting with deadly weapons) cannot apply because criminal force as defined in Section 349 IPC requires use of force on another person, not on animals; (2) Section 149 (act of member of unlawful assembly) can apply when an unlawful assembly is formed with the common object of committing mischief against wildlife, as 'mischief' under Section 425 IPC includes damage to wildlife which constitutes loss to ecology and public; (3) The definition of 'offence' under Section 40 IPC extends to special laws like the Wildlife Protection Act for purposes of Section 141 IPC (unlawful assembly), particularly Clause Thirdly which covers 'other offence'; (4) Damage to wildlife, even if not calculable in monetary terms, constitutes loss to the public and society, bringing it within the definition of mischief.
On this section: Definition of mischief - Court held that damage to wildlife constitutes mischief as it causes loss to ecology and public
-
State vs Neelam Kothari
Decided under Indian Penal Code 425, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Damage caused to wildlife, even if not evaluable in monetary terms, constitutes loss to public ecology and society at large. Therefore, the provisions of Section 141 IPC (unlawful assembly) can be applied to offences under the Wildlife Protection Act, and consequently, Section 149 IPC (act of any member of unlawful assembly) applies to wildlife hunting offences when multiple persons act with common object to commit mischief. However, Sections 147 and 148 IPC (rioting and rioting with deadly weapons) do not apply to wildlife hunting as they require criminal force affecting persons, not animals.
On this section: Definition of mischief - Court held that damage to wildlife constitutes mischief as it causes loss to public ecology
-
Vinod Kumar vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 425, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where specific statutory provisions exist in municipal law for dealing with encroachments on public roads, such encroachments should be prosecuted under those specific provisions rather than under general criminal law provisions like Sections 425 and 431 IPC. The proper legal framework for prosecuting municipal road encroachments is Section 321 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which empowers the Commissioner of MCD to remove unauthorized items from streets. Criminal law provisions are not meant to be applied to such offences when specific municipal statutes provide for them.
On this section: Mischief - Court held this section is not applicable to municipal encroachments as there is a specific statutory provision
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 324
What have the courts held on Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith (28 Jul 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 425, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Definition of mischief; causing destruction of property with intent to cause wrongful loss or damage. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2006 to 2021.
Is Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Any Magistrate.
How do I find court cases under Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 324, section 324 BNS, section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 324 4 section in hindi and bns 324 5 section in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith (28 Jul 2021).
What should I read with Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 425 (Mischief), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 324, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.