Criminal trespass and house-trespass
Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with criminal trespass and house-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 The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) 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.
(2) Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit house-trespass.
Explanation.—The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.
(3) 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 thousand rupees, or with both.
(4) Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 329, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 441 Criminal trespass Text carried over almost unchanged 87%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
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 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criminal trespass. | Imprisonment for 3 months, or fine of 5,000 rupees, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
| House-trespass. | Imprisonment for 1 year, or fine of 5,000 rupees, or both. | Cognizable. | Bailable. | Any Magistrate. |
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.
-
S. D. Bandi vs Divisional Traffic Officer, Ksrtc
Decided under Indian Penal Code 441, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Government accommodation is a scarce public resource and unauthorized occupation beyond the prescribed retention period by employees of any branch of government (legislature, executive, or judiciary) is unjustifiable. While the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 provides the statutory framework for addressing such unauthorized occupation, the Act's effectiveness is limited by lengthy procedures and inadequate deterrents. Therefore, in addition to statutory provisions, comprehensive administrative guidelines with clear timelines for notice, show cause, eviction orders, and recovery mechanisms must be implemented uniformly across all States and Union Territories. These guidelines must provide for: (a) advance notice three months before retirement/transfer, (b) seven-day show cause periods, (c) expedited eviction orders within 15 days, (d) recovery of arrears as land revenue, (e) compound interest provisions, (f) stringent appeal disposal timelines, and (g) special procedures for legislative and judicial officers to prevent breach of privileges. Self-realization among unauthorized occupants regarding their violation of others' rights is essential, but this must be supported by effective enforcement mechanisms and guidelines.
On this section: Noted amendments made by Orissa and Uttar Pradesh to include unauthorized use of property and failure to withdraw when directed; discussed as potential model for other states
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Wrongful restraint; cited in property damage case
-
Md. Ankoos vs Pub. Pros. High Court of A. P. Hyderabad
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When appellants have been expressly charged under Section 148 IPC for rioting with deadly weapons and acquitted thereof by both the trial court and the appellate court, they cannot be legally convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC which creates constructive liability based on membership of unlawful assembly with common object. The common substratum necessary for both Sections 148 and 149 (i.e., the unlawful assembly with common object) must exist for Section 149 constructive liability to apply. Further, a High Court cannot reverse a trial court's judgment of acquittal by using case diary statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to verify witness credibility or overcome contradictions without following the mandatory procedure under Section 172 Cr.P.C. and Section 145 Indian Evidence Act.
On this section: House-trespass - charge relating to forcible entry into houses of victims
-
Uday Ram vs State (nct) of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a delay in registration of FIR is satisfactorily explained by extraordinary circumstances such as communal riots, police inaction despite complaints, and subsequent direction by an inquiry committee, such delay does not by itself vitiate the prosecution case. Conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence (including affidavits before official committees, witness testimony, documentary evidence like invoices and commercial records, civil court decrees, and evidence of long-term illegal occupation) even in the absence of direct ocular testimony to the crime. However, in sentencing, the Court has discretion to show leniency based on compelling personal circumstances such as advanced age, when the fundamental conviction is sustainable.
On this section: House trespass - Conviction imposed for breaking locks and entering the premises without authorization
-
Ashi Devi vs State (nct of Delhi)
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conviction of persons for theft and criminal trespass committed during communal riots can be sustained on the basis of circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, when the circumstances are coherent, consistent, and conclusively establish guilt. The delay in registration of FIR caused by the riot situation and subsequent administrative inquiry processes is reasonably explained and does not, by itself, invalidate a conviction. In sentencing, the court may exercise discretion to reduce imprisonment for elderly appellants who have already undergone a substantial portion of the sentence, particularly where humanitarian considerations warrant such mitigation.
On this section: Criminal trespass - applied as substantive conviction for breaking into and occupying the locked shops without authorization
-
Sarabjeet Singh @ Binny vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings, the question of restoration of possession of immovable property cannot be decided in a writ petition before trial. Restoration of possession can only be ordered under Section 456 CrPC after conviction of the accused. Disputes relating to possession and title of immovable property are civil matters which must be adjudicated by Civil Courts, not criminal courts. Criminal courts have limited jurisdiction to determine only whether illegal dispossession occurred as a criminal act, not to adjudicate civil rights to possession.
On this section: Offence of criminal trespass - basis of FIR registration against petitioners
-
Ram Kishan vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a criminal case arises from a family property dispute and the parties have amicably settled their differences through a mediation agreement, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings, as no useful purpose would be served by continuing the case. The court should consider the nature of the dispute, the settlement reached by the parties, and the consent of the complainant in deciding whether to quash the FIR.
On this section: Sections under which the FIR was registered. Section 448 pertains to criminal trespass and Section 453 pertains to criminal intimidation or wrongful restraint. These sections were applied to the petitioners' alleged conduct of entering the complainant's house.
-
Suresh Chander Gupta vs State
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties to a criminal dispute reach a genuine mutual settlement and compromise, and the complainant/informant explicitly states before the court that he no longer wishes to press charges, the High Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, may quash the FIR and all further proceedings in the interest of justice, provided the court is satisfied of the authenticity of the settlement and the complainant's identity.
On this section: These sections were cited as the charges in the original FIR - Section 448 (criminal intimidation), Section 380 (theft), Section 427 (mischief causing damage), and Section 34 (common intention). The court quashed the FIR under these sections.
-
Ashok Chetri vs State of Assam
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of alleged rape, while victim testimony supported by corroborating evidence may establish the commission of a sexual offence, the absence of medical evidence of penetration when medical examination is conducted promptly without delay is a significant factor in determining whether the offence constitutes rape under Section 376 IPC or attempt to commit rape under Section 376/511 IPC. Penetration is a sine qua non for rape, and the court must be satisfied that the accused intended to gratify his passions and intended to do so at all events notwithstanding resistance. Indecent assaults must not be magnified into attempts at rape without clear evidence of such intent and determination.
On this section: Punishment for Criminal Intimidation by Anonymous Written or Oral Communication - Mentioned by counsel as potentially applicable but not applied by trial court; court did not address this in detail
-
Abdul Kadhar vs The State Rep by Its
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a Criminal Revision petition seeking enhancement of sentence, the High Court cannot interfere with the trial court's discretionary sentencing merely because the petitioner is dissatisfied with the quantum of punishment. The petitioner must produce material evidence demonstrating that the offence committed is heinous in nature. Without such evidence of heinous nature, the sentence imposed by the trial court exercising its discretionary power cannot be interfered with by the High Court.
On this section: Punishment for criminal trespass; applied to the accused's unauthorized entry into the petitioner's house
-
Mohd Khaja Nazeeruddin vs The State of Telangana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 442, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint alleging cognizable offences is filed with police, the police have a mandatory duty to register a case following the procedure under Section 154 CrPC and in accordance with guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. Once such registration is effected, the petitioner's grievance of police inaction stands redressed, and the court should direct the police to proceed with investigation strictly in accordance with law and file appropriate charge sheet or final report expeditiously.
On this section: Offences of criminal intimidation and criminal force used to dispossess property, applied to the alleged conduct of respondents 4-11 in forcibly taking possession of petitioner's land
-
Nawab Mohsin Vilayat Khan vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An application for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected if the apprehension of arrest is not made out due to the police having already opted to release the applicant under procedural notices for cooperation.
On this section: Substantive offenses relating to trespass, mischief, insult, and intimidation.
-
Ajjamada Katti Mandaiah vs State of Karnataka
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Proceedings initiated against public servants for acts done in discharge of official duty without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC are illegal and liable to be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. However, private citizens acting as moral police without official authority are not entitled to the protection of Section 197 CrPC and must face criminal proceedings if prima facie case is made out.
On this section: Punishment for criminal intimidation
-
Prem Shanker Rohilla vs State Govt. of N.c.t. of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties to a criminal dispute have amicably settled their differences through a compromise deed and the complainant voluntarily withdraws support for the prosecution without any pressure or threat, the High Court may exercise its discretion to quash the criminal proceedings in the interest of justice, particularly when the State does not oppose such quashing.
On this section: Criminal intimidation and wrongful restraint - charge in the original FIR that was quashed
-
Dwarka Das vs State and Anr.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 448, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving disputed land ownership where criminal trespass charges are based on conflicting claims regarding gift deeds and land rights, the High Court should not summarily quash the FIR but should direct the Investigating Agency to conduct thorough investigation including proper land demarcation through revenue records and fair consideration of the accused's defence regarding valid gift deeds before concluding the investigation.
On this section: House-trespass - charge against petitioner for alleged unauthorized entry into building structures
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 329
What have the courts held on Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
S. D. Bandi vs Divisional Traffic Officer, Ksrtc (05 Jul 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 441, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Noted amendments made by Orissa and Uttar Pradesh to include unauthorized use of property and failure to withdraw when directed; discussed as potential model for other states. Another 14 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2025.
Is Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
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 329 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 329, section 329 BNS, section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 329(3) and bns 329(4). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 15 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with S. D. Bandi vs Divisional Traffic Officer, Ksrtc (05 Jul 2013).
What should I read with Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward IPC 441 (Criminal trespass), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, commonly called criminal trespass, and cited as BNS 329, 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.