The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a school building can qualify as a “place for custody of property” under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Consequently, unauthorised entry into school premises may attract the offence of house-trespass.
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal examined the scope of Sections 441 (criminal trespass), 442 (house-trespass), and 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint) of the IPC while deciding the matter.
Why a School Can Be a “Place for Custody of Property”
The Court clarified that house-trespass is committed when criminal trespass occurs by entering:
- A building used as a human dwelling;
- A building used as a place of worship; or
- A building used as a place for custody of property.
Although a school is neither a dwelling house nor a place of worship, the Court noted that it stores furniture, equipment, and other educational assets within its premises. Therefore, since such property is kept in safe custody inside the building, a school can fall within the third category contemplated under Section 442 IPC.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from allegations against the petitioner, an NSUI member. According to the complainant, the petitioner and others entered Krishna Kids Academy without permission. It was further alleged that they staged a protest inside the premises, abused staff members, and misbehaved with female employees.
Following the complaint, the Trial Court framed charges under:
- Section 452 IPC; and
- Section 294 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Challenging the order framing charges, the petitioner first approached the revisional court, which dismissed his plea. He subsequently moved the High Court.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that he had entered the school premises to protest against its alleged illegal functioning. In particular, he opposed the charge under Section 452 IPC, arguing that a school cannot be treated as a “dwelling house.” On this basis, he submitted that the ingredients of house-trespass were not made out.
State’s Submissions
On the other hand, the State relied on statements recorded from school employees. It argued that the material on record disclosed trespass as well as abusive conduct. Additionally, the State emphasised that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only required to determine whether a prima facie case exists, not to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence.
High Court’s Reasoning
While examining the record, the High Court underscored that the complainant was in exclusive possession of the school premises. The petitioner, in contrast, had no lawful authority to enter the premises forcibly.
The Court observed:
“The School building was in exclusive possession of the complainant and the petitioner was not having any right to forceful enter into the premises under the possession of the complainant without their permission.”
In light of this, the Court held that the essential ingredients of house-trespass were prima facie satisfied, particularly since the building could be regarded as a place where property is kept in custody.
Decision
Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court’s order framing charges under Section 452 IPC, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Vikas Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh
