Section 329: Criminal Trespass and House-Trespass

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita • Chapter XVII: Of Offences Against Property • Official Statutory Text & Legal Guide

Chapter XVII: Of Offences Against Property
Any Magistrate
Bailable
Cognizable
Formerly Sec 441, 442, 447, 448 IPC

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 329

Section 329 defines and penalises 'Criminal Trespass' and 'House-Trespass', punishing unlawful entry into or remaining upon property in possession of another with intent to commit an offence, or to intimidate, insult, or annoy.

  • Entry onto Property: Entering into or upon property in the possession of another, or lawfully entering but unlawfully remaining.
  • Absence of Consent: Without legal right or consent of the possessor.
  • Specific Intention: With intent to commit an offence, or to intimidate, insult, or annoy the person in possession.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Mathuri v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 986: The Supreme Court settled that the dominant intention of the trespasser must be to commit an offence or intimidate/annoy; entry under a bona fide dispute of civil title does not constitute criminal trespass.
  • Ram Avtar v. State of Haryana (1985) 3 SCC 410: Held that entering agricultural fields under a bona fide civil claim of tenancy lacks criminal mens rea.
  • State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup (1974) 4 SCC 764: Affirmed that house-trespass involves breach of the sanctuary of human dwelling.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In boundary or tenant disputes, establish whether a bona fide civil dispute exists. If the dispute is pending before a civil court or revenue authority, argue lack of criminal intent under *Mathuri*.