House-trespass alter preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint
Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with house-trespass alter preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 452, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 333 House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Dharmatma Singh vs Harminder Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court cannot exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash criminal proceedings at an interlocutory stage when the Magistrate has not yet applied judicial mind to the police reports filed under Section 173 and Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate has the statutory duty and judicial discretion to independently evaluate all police reports (both initial and further investigation reports) and determine whether to take cognizance of offences, regardless of police recommendations. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot be exercised to circumvent or short-circuit the Magistrate's statutory role. Exercise of Section 482 powers before a Magistrate applies judicial mind to the merits of the case would violate the procedural hierarchy and legislative scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code.
On this section: These sections were cited as the substantive criminal charges against the appellant and respondents - relating to criminal intimidation, causing hurt and grievous hurt. The court noted these charges were subject matter of the dispute regarding self-defence applicability.
-
Dilbagh Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is not named in the First Information Report and identification is sought to be established for the first time in court after a long interval, the prosecution must arrange a test identification parade as a matter of procedural safeguard and criminal jurisprudence. Conviction cannot be sustained on the sole basis of courtroom identification without such a parade, especially when the circumstances and logic (such as the first informant being from the same small village) render the identification inherently unreliable. The burden of proof always remains on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it is not the accused's obligation to prove innocence through defence evidence. Circumstantial evidence and motive must be positively established; assertion without material on record is insufficient.
On this section: House trespass with intent to commit offence - applied for unlawful entry into the family residence
-
Hakkim vs State Tr. Dy. Supdt. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple accused enter a premises with preplanned weapons and execute a coordinated attack resulting in death and injuries, the use of multiple weapons is established by: (1) eyewitness testimony of victims present at the scene; (2) the distribution and severity of injuries across multiple parts of the body and across multiple victims; and (3) recovery of all weapons at the crime scene. Forensic testing of only one weapon does not negate the use of multiple weapons. Therefore, Sections 109 and 149 IPC are validly invoked, and all accused are liable for murder under Section 302 IPC even if one person inflicted the fatal wound. Additionally, persons who commit murder while under 18 years of age are entitled to juvenile justice protections including maximum detention of 3 years, and if this period is exceeded, immediate release must be ordered notwithstanding confirmation of conviction.
On this section: House-Breaking in Order to Commit an Offense Punishable with Life or 7+ Years Imprisonment, Where the House-Breaking Causes Hurt to Any Person - Initially charged but conviction recorded under more specific Section 449.
-
Goudappa vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When several persons assemble together and one of them commits murder in furtherance of their collective purpose, those who merely hold or restrain the victim to facilitate the assault can be held liable as joint perpetrators under Section 34 IPC if the totality of circumstances, including the manner of crime, their conduct, the weapons used, and their failure to prevent the fatal assault, demonstrates that they shared a common intention with the actual perpetrator to cause death. Common intention can be inferred from such circumstances even without prior explicit agreement when the incriminating facts are incompatible with innocence and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis.
On this section: Criminal intimidation, mischief, voluntarily causing hurt - charged but appellants acquitted of these charges; focus remained on murder conviction.
-
Gajraj vs State(nct) of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Every mobile handset possesses an exclusive and unchangeable IEMI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number. When a mobile handset is used for making calls, service providers record both the caller's number and the called number, along with the IEMI numbers of the handsets used. This IEMI data constitutes scientific and irrefutable evidence. When an accused person is identified as using the deceased victim's mobile handset (identified by its unique IEMI number) with the accused's own registered SIM number immediately after the commission of the murder, and when the same handset and the murder weapon are recovered from the accused's custody, such digital forensic evidence, combined with recovery of stolen property and evidence of temporal nexus to the crime, conclusively establishes the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Even minor or serious discrepancies in oral testimony cannot diminish the evidentiary value of such conclusive scientific evidence. Therefore, conviction based on such digital forensic evidence, physical recovery, and circumstantial evidence meeting the standard of proof is legally sound and must be upheld.
On this section: Applied for house trespass, charge ultimately dismissed in trial court
-
George Pon Paul vs Kanagalet
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the mandatory nature of custodial sentence under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons is established and trial courts cannot impose only fine as punishment, appellate courts in exercise of their equitable jurisdiction may consider the extraordinary passage of time, victim compensation already provided, and fine already deposited as relevant factors in determining whether to execute additional custodial sentence beyond time already undergone, thereby balancing the demands of statutory mandates with principles of equitable justice.
On this section: House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint was applied to establish the aggravated nature of the offense where the accused entered the home with preparation to cause hurt. This section was cited in conjunction with Section 326 to establish the seriousness of the criminal conduct, as the trespass was not casual but undertaken with premeditation to commit violence.
-
Arun vs State by Inspector of Police, T. Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere presence of an accused at the scene of crime without any overt act or evidence of prior meeting of minds cannot establish common intention under Section 34 IPC for vicarious liability of murder. The prosecution must prove that the accused shared a common intention with the principal offender either through pre-arrangement or by clear evidence of understanding developed at the spur of moment. In the absence of such evidence, the accused is liable only for their individual act, not for the act of the principal offender. An appellate court should not reverse an acquittal judgment unless there is compelling evidence that the trial court's view was unreasonable, as double presumption of innocence favours the acquitted accused.
On this section: House-trespass with intent to commit offence; charged in FIR
-
State of U. P vs Veer Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person who makes a statement believed to be a dying declaration subsequently survives, such statement must be treated under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and not as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Such statements can be used only for corroboration under Section 157 or for contradiction under Section 155 of the Evidence Act, and not as substantive evidence. Therefore, the acquittal of accused persons solely on the ground that they were not named in such a limited statement, when they were named in the FIR and other evidence of their involvement exists, constitutes a manifest error of law and is indefensible. Appellate courts must apply their mind objectively to all evidence on record and not dispose of appeals on erroneous or incomplete analysis of evidence.
On this section: House-trespass with intent to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment or seven years imprisonment; applied in the conviction
-
Narendra vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When death occurs significantly delayed (62 days) after a single bullet injury to the head, and the proximate cause of death is septicaemia (infection) rather than the direct impact of the bullet injury itself, the conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) cannot be sustained. Instead, the appropriate conviction is under Section 304 Part I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) if the evidence establishes that the accused had the intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, particularly when no medical expert opinion is elicited that the injury itself was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The chain of causation is broken by the intervention of septicaemia and other complications that arise after a considerable delay.
On this section: Conviction under this section (criminal intimidation/house trespass/burglary) was affirmed. This section applied because the appellants entered Roop Singh's house at night with intent to commit an offence.
-
Gurcharan Singh @ Billa vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving non-heinous offences of a predominantly private nature where the parties have genuinely compromised after conviction and the victim has willingly consented to the nullification of criminal proceedings, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings and set aside the conviction and sentence, provided the court exercises such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at, and the nature and seriousness of the offence. The touchstone for exercising this extraordinary power is to secure the ends of justice. However, grave or serious offences involving moral turpitude or having a harmful effect on the social and moral fabric of society cannot be compounded or quashed through compromise.
On this section: House-trespass or house-breaking in order to commit offence punishable with life imprisonment or 7 years imprisonment; cited in the FIRs
-
Sewa Singh @ Nanha vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Human teeth cannot be considered as an instrument for cutting or weapon of offence as enumerated under Section 326 IPC. Therefore, injury caused by biting should be classified under Section 325 IPC (voluntary hurt) rather than Section 326 IPC (grievous hurt by weapon). The appropriate sentence for such injury, even if causing permanent deformation, should be proportionate to the nature of the offense and consider the accused's criminal history, duration of prosecution, and bail conduct.
On this section: House-trespass with intent to commit offence - applied to the facts of the case where accused entered the victim's house
-
Dhara Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When members of an unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons gather to take forcible possession of disputed land, they form a common object to dispossess the occupants. While the common object is limited to taking possession, the members of the assembly know that grievous injuries are likely to be caused in prosecution of this object. Therefore, all members are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for offences under Sections 326/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149, 452, 447, and 148 IPC. However, if one or more members exceed the common object by causing fatal injuries resulting in death, only those members who directly caused the fatal injuries are liable for murder under Section 302 IPC, not all members of the assembly. The delay in sending the FIR to the magistrate, combined with lack of specific role attribution to female members, justifies their acquittal on grounds of abundant caution. The protracted trial duration constitutes a mitigating circumstance in sentencing.
On this section: House-trespass with intent to commit offence; applied to accused who entered disputed land with weapons
-
Harbans Lal vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a probation period imposed by a lower court has been completed by the convicted persons, a revision petition challenging the grant of probation becomes infructuous, and the High Court need not examine the legality or propriety of the probation order. The completion of the probation period renders the revision petition moot and without practical effect.
On this section: Sections under which the 15 accused were convicted - relating to criminal intimidation, criminal breach of trust, endangering life, mischief, and rioting
-
Gaurav vs State of Hp
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Security proceedings under Sections 107 and 150 CrPC are preventive in nature and do not bar subsequent FIR registration for cognizable offences arising from the same incident. Discharge in security proceedings is not acquittal and does not attract the prohibition of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC. A person discharged in preventive proceedings may be prosecuted for criminal offences based on the same facts. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, should only examine whether allegations prima facie constitute an offence without conducting a mini-trial or appreciating evidence. Contradictions in complaint or complainant statement are not grounds for quashing FIR at threshold stage.
On this section: House-trespass with intent to commit offence - applied to entering informant's house and damaging gate and door
-
Harbans Lal vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A revision petition challenging the grant of probation becomes infructuous and cannot be entertained once the probation period has been completed by the accused, as the court cannot grant the relief sought (cancellation of probation and enhancement of sentence) when the probation has already been undergone. In such circumstances, the court need not examine the legality or propriety of the original probation order.
On this section: Criminal intimidation - used to convict all 15 accused persons with 1 year imprisonment
-
J.lalitha vs The Superintendent of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court cannot direct the police to alter an FIR by adding additional sections of the Indian Penal Code without evidence of the commission of those offences. The police must gather evidence before filing an alteration report, and it is within the police's discretion to determine when and whether to file such a report based on the evidence collected during investigation.
On this section: House-trespass or house-breaking with intent to commit offence - originally charged in the FIR
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.
-
… Respondents J U D G M E N T ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The present appeal is preferred by the State Government. The respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). The Trial Court held the respondents accused as guilty. The Trial Court convicted the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 147 and Sections 452, 302, 325, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. For the …
-
… The instant criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 01.03.2012 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, whereby the criminal appeal preferred by the respondent had been allowed. The High Court, while acquitting him under Sections 376 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the "IPC"), has set aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 02.01.2009, holding the respondent guilty of the aforementioned offences with a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the State at a considerable …
-
… P-1 and others. For the occurrence, which took place at about 9.30 p.m. on 18.07.2002, the registration of FIR/complaint was done in Crime No. 237/2002 at about 11.00 p.m. against six named accused and other identifiable ones for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 452, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act. The registered complaint reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 4.15 p.m. the next day. - 5. P.W.64 took up the investigation, and accordingly arrested the accused, A-10, A-12 and A-13 on …
Questions about Section 452
What have the courts held on Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code?
Dharmatma Singh vs Harminder Singh (10 May 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: These sections were cited as the substantive criminal charges against the appellant and respondents - relating to criminal intimidation, causing hurt and grievous hurt. The court noted these charges were subject matter of the dispute regarding self-defence applicability. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 9 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2004 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 452 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 452, section 452 IPC, section 452 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 452 punishment and ipc 452 is bailable or not. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Dharmatma Singh vs Harminder Singh (10 May 2011).
What should I read with Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 333 (House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 452, 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.