Mischief
Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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 in to 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 there by 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.
Section 425, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 324 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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 11
- Arunachal Pradesh Property ( Prevention of Damage and Loss ) Act s. 2
- Kerala Loading and Unloading ( Regulation of Wages and Restriction of Unlawful Practices) Act s. 2 Definitions
- Maharashtra Prevention of Communal, Anti-social and other Dangerous Activities Act s. 2 Definitions
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act s. 2 Definitions
- Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act s. 2 Punishment for committing mischief in respect of property
- Puducherry Loading and Unloading (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act s. 2
- Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Destruction and Loss) Act s. 2
- Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Act s. 2 Definitions
- West Bengal Maintenance Of Public Order Act s. 12
- West Bengal Maintenance Of Public Order Act s. 12
- West Bengal ( Prevention Of Violent Activities ) Act s. 3
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
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
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
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 Saif Ali
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
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 Salman Khan& ORS.
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 Neelam Kothari
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
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months." The expression "mischief" is defined in Section 2(a) to have the meaning which is ascribed to it in Section 425<sup>34</sup> of the IPC: > "(a) "mischief" shall have the same meaning as in section 425 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);" The ingredients of Section 425 are: - (i) causing destruction of any property (a) with an intent to cause; or (b) knowing of the likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person; or - (ii) any change in the property or its situation which …
-
… may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months." The expression "mischief" is defined in Section 2(a) to have the meaning which is ascribed to it in Section 425<sup>34</sup> of the IPC: > "(a) "mischief" shall have the same meaning as in section 425 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);" The ingredients of Section 425 are: - (i) causing destruction of any property (a) with an intent to cause; or (b) knowing of the likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person; or - (ii) any change in the property or its situation which …
Questions about Section 425
What have the courts held on Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code?
The State of Kerala vs K. Ajith (28 Jul 2021) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: 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.
How do I find court cases under Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 425, section 425 IPC, section 425 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 425 in bns and ipc 425 and 426. 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 425 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
11 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 324 (Mischief), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 425, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.