Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balram Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14842
1 MCRC-28119-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 25th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 28119 of 2024
BALRAM THAKUR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ranu Singh Mehndiratta - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Shanti Tiwari - Panel Lawyer for the State.
None for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
Assail in this petition is to the order dated 07-03-2024 by which the trial Court has altered the charge in exercise of powers conferred under Section 216 of the CrPC under Section 458 of the IPC.
2. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that contents of the FIR at page No.33 of the petition reflects that pertaining to an incident the FIR was lodged against the present petitioners under sections 353, 332,294, 427/34 of the IPC. Later on, offence under Section 333 of the IPC was also added. The said addition was assailed by filing a petition before this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC vide MCrC No.2073/2017 and this Court set aside the said order. Later on, the trial Court vide impugned order dated 07- 03-2024 came to the conclusion that the charge under Section 458 of IPC is required to be framed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/29/2025 6:09:54 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14842 2 MCRC-28119-2024
3. There was allegation against the present petitioners of house- trespass as well as house-breaking, as they entered into the Police Station and ransacked the same and also manhandled the officials sitting therein. It is contended by the counsel that Section 458 of IPC only comes into play, when the intruder conceals his presence, whereas in the present case, as per allegations, the present petitioners according to the prosecution entered into the Police Station and committed the offence, therefore, section 458 of IPC does not come into play. In support of his submission the counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Dhum Singh vs. State of M.P. (Criminal Appeal No.1181 of 1999) decided on 10-11-2022 . It is also contended by the counsel that the offence so alleged, cannot be said to be the offence of lurking house trespass or house-breaking, as the place is not a dwelling house, accordingly the charge framed against the petitioners is unsustainable. The counsel has further placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Jagir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and another (CRM-M-42293 of 2014, dated 26-10-2018); Radheshyam and others vs. State of M.P. (Cr.R. No.3446 of 2021, dated 30-06-2022); Krishna Shakya and others vs. State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.7245 of 2023, dated 13-02-2023); Shambhu and others vs. The State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No.18695/2021, dated 23-04-2021; State of Haryana vs. Prem Singh, decided on 22-02-2007); Seema Gupta vs. State of M.P. and others, (Crl.M.C.3819/2011, dated 05-09-2012); and Bhagirath and another vs. State of Punjab and Others (CRR-1022-2016, dated 19-01-2017).
4. The counsel for the State opposed the prayer and contended that the Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/29/2025 6:09:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14842 3 MCRC-28119-2024 impugned order passed by the trial Court is based on proper appreciation of facts and law governing the field and does not warrant any interference in the present petition.
5. Heard submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the records.
6. To deal with the issue, as to whether Section 458 of IPC in the present case, is made out or not, it would be apposite to first refer to the relevant provisions of the IPC. Section 441 of IPC provides definition of 'criminal trespass', which reads thus :
"441. Criminal 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 annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass".
7. Section 442 of IPC defines 'house-trespass'. It reads thus :
"442. House-trespass.--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."
8. Section 443 of the IPC provides 'lurking house-trespass. It provides thus:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/29/2025 6:09:54 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14842 4 MCRC-28119-2024 "443. Lurking house-trespass.--Whoever commits house-trespass having taken precautions to conceal such house-trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building, tent or vessel which is the subject of the trespass, is said to commit "lurking house-trespass".
9. Section 445 of the IPC defines 'house-breaking' which is reproduced hereunder :
"445. House-breaking.--A person is said to commit "house- breaking" who commits house-trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described; or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or, having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of such six ways, that is to say:--
First.--If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.
Secondly.--If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building. Thirdly.--If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
Fourthly.--If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.
Fifthly.--If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault or by threatening any person with assault.
Sixthly.--If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass.
Explanation.--Any outhouse or building occupied with a house, and between which and such house there is an immediate internal communication, is part of the house within the meaning of this section."Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/29/2025 6:09:54 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14842 5 MCRC-28119-2024
10. Section 458 of the IPC provides lurking house-trespass or house- breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, which is extracted hereunder :
"458. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.--Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any 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 fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine."
11. On a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is luminescent that criminal trespass is an act of entering into or upon property in the possession of another with the intention to commit the offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into upon such property, unlawfully remains there with the aforesaid intents. As per Section 442 of the IPC, when someone commits criminal trespass by entering into any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit house- trespass. Section 443 of the IPC reveals that if one while committing house- trespass takes precaution to conceal such house-trespass from some person, that amounts to lurking house-trespass. So far as Section 445 is concerned, the same does not speak about the precaution by the intruder to conceal his entry, as compared to Section 443 of IPC. So far as house-breaking is concerned, Section 445 of IPC does not stipulate that the intruder must have taken precaution to conceal house-trespass.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/29/2025 6:09:54 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14842 6 MCRC-28119-2024
12. Now, in order to deal with the controversy, if Section 458 of the IPC is perused, the same reflects that if there is lurking house-trespass or house breaking by night after preparation for causing hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, the same would be punishable with the sentence of 14 years and fine. At this juncture, it is important to take note of the fact that 'house-trespass' and 'lurking house-trespass' have been defined separately under the IPC. Concealment of house-trespass is mentioned in the definition of 'lurking house-trespass' only. Section 445 of IPC refers to 'house- breaking' but, section 445 nowhere deals with any eventuality of lurking house-trespass. Meaning thereby, an offence of house-breaking and house- breaking by night, does not require, that there has to be concealment of entry in order to commit the offence of house-breaking. House-trespass which is mentioned in Section 442 of IPC per se attracts an offence of house-breaking as per Section 445 of IPC.
13. Accordingly, in Section 458 of IPC there are two eventualities which make the act to be punishable. Firstly, if there is lurking house- trespass after preparation for causing hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, Section 458 comes into play. And, as per the other stipulation, if there is house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, the said act also becomes punishable. Meaning thereby, in the event of lurking house-trespass as well as house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, the act in question is punishable as per Section 458 of IPC. Thus, the aforesaid two eventualities, makes an act to be punishable under Section 458 of IPC.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/29/2025 6:09:54 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14842 7 MCRC-28119-2024
14. Now, if the allegations levelled in the present case are taken into consideration, in view of the aforesaid provisions of IPC, it would reveal that as per the allegations, the present applicants along with the co-accused entered in the Police Station at around 11:15 hrs. in the night. Upon entering in the Police Station, they started abusing the staff which was available at the Police Station and when their act was sought to be resisted they pushed the Constable and also manhandled the complainant. There are other allegations of causing damage to the furniture in the Police Station. There is no allegation that the applicants concealed their entry in Police Station.
15. As per definition of 'house-trespass', apart from the building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, a place for custody of property is also covered within the definition of 'house-trespass' as postulated in Section 442 of IPC. This aspect was taken note of by the High Court of Karnataka in the case of State of Karnataka by Cantonment vs. Richard @ Aruldas and Chakravarthi, 2008 CrLJ 2200 where in paragraph No.28 it is held as under
:
"28. Therefore from a combine reading of these two Sections and in. particular, having regard to use of the expression in building used as a place for "custody of property" I am of the view that A4 having entered the police station and having assaulted PW2, Section 452 gets attracted. A police station is necessarily house in a building and it is also a place for custody of properly. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the respondents that Section 452 of the IPC is applicable only in respect of any building used as a human dwelling. In this regard, it is also pertinent to refer to a decision reported in 1991(2) Orissa LR 295 which decision has been referred to in AIR Manual 5th Edition Volume 38 at page 868 where it is commented thus:
"Where the evidence on record proved that accused Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/29/2025 6:09:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:14842 8 MCRC-28119-2024 went inside office room of the Sub-Divisional Veterinary Assistant Surgeon with a stone in hand and threatened to assault him, offence under Section 448 is made out against thus accused."
16. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, a Police Station is also a place for custody of property and accordingly an offence of house- trespass attracts, when the same is committed while unauthorizedly entering into the Police Station, as the same is considered to be a place which is used for custody of the property as well.
17. Thus analyzed, this Court of is of the considered view, that the Court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 07-03-2024 altering the charge under Section 458 of IPC. The judgements relied upon by the petitioners are of no assistance.
18. Consequently, this petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE ac Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 3/29/2025 6:09:54 PM