Trespass within restaurant is not a ‘house offence’ under Sections 442, 452 IPC: Supreme Court

Noting that a restaurant cannot be said to be a place used for human habitation or worship or for the safekeeping of property, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction of a person charged with the offense of “house trespass after preparation for injury” under Section 452 of IPC.

The sofa consisting of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma noted that the restaurant does not meet the criteria of a “house” under Section 442 IPC as it is neither a dwelling place, a place of worship nor a place for the custody of property. Therefore, the necessary element for an offense under Article 452 has not been met.

Under Section 442 of the IPC, the offense of House Trespass is committed by entering or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human habitation or a building used as a place of worship, or as a place for the custody of property.

Section 452 of the IPC punishes entering or remaining on any premises after preparing to cause damage or commit other criminal acts.

“452. Home trespass after preparation for pain, assault or unlawful restraint. – Whoever commits trespass after having prepared to injure or assault any person, or to unlawfully restrain any person, or to put any person in fear of injury, assault or unlawful coercion, shall be punished with imprisonment of whatever nature, for a term which may extend.”

It was a case where the appellant-accused had visited the restaurant and after the owner of the restaurant refused to provide a jug of water for alcohol consumption, the accused voluntarily hurt the owner with a knife. Thereafter, an FIR under Sections 324 and 452 of the IPC was registered against the accused. The court convicted the suspect and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction. After this, preference was given to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The court upheld the conviction for voluntarily causing harm under Section 324 of the IPC, quashed the conviction under Section 452 and observed that since the essential requirement of Section 452 IPC read with Sections 441 and 442 of the IPC, no offense could have been committed. be brought under Section 452 of the IPC.

The Court has noted this “Since the ‘house trespass’ is an essential ingredient for convicting a person under Article 452, it must be proven by the prosecution that the accused committed the house trespass and the criminal trespass by entering or unlawfully staying in a building, tent or vessel used as a human habitation or a building used as a place of worship, or as a place for the custody of property, within the meaning of Section 442 IPC.”

After considering the facts of the case, the court considered that, indeed, “The incident had taken place in a restaurant run by the injured and which cannot be said to be a place used for human habitation or for worship or for the safekeeping of the property. Since the ingredients of the offense under Article 452, namely the criminal offense referred to in Article 441 and the house trespass referred to in Article 442, have not been proven by the prosecution, the appellant could therefore not have been convicted of the offense under Section 442. Section 452 IPC.”

The trial court partially allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence under Section 324 IPC, but acquitting the appellant under Section 452 IPC.

Since the appellant had already served two years, he was ordered to be released if not needed in any other case. However, he remained liable to pay the fine for the conviction under Section 324 IPC.

Appearance

For appellant(s) Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, Adv. Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Adv. MADAM. Vaibhav & Dash Law Associates, AOR

For respondent(s) Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, ASG Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

Case Title: Sonu Choudary v. State of NCT Delhi, CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3111 OF 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 882

Click here to read/download the judgment