IPC 425 / 426 in the new BNS 2023

If you have been named in an FIR or notice under this section, the section number alone does not decide the outcome — the facts, the evidence and the procedure do. Many cases turn on procedural lapses, bail strategy and the exact ingredients of the offence.

Mischief covers damage to property done deliberately or with the knowledge that damage was likely, and it runs from a broken window to the destruction of a vehicle or a crop. Under the BNS it sits at Section 324, and this is one of the provisions the recodification genuinely modernised: the punishment is now graded by the value of the damage, replacing a threshold that had been fixed at fifty rupees since 1860.

What the section requires

For the offence to be made out, these ingredients have to be established:

• the accused intended to cause, or knew they were likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person
• the accused caused the destruction of property, or a change in property or its situation
• that destruction or change destroyed or diminished the property's value or utility, or affected it injuriously

What changed from the IPC

The definition is carried over, but the punishment structure was rebuilt. The IPC dealt with mischief across three sections: 425 defined it, 426 punished it with up to three months, and 427 raised that to two years where the damage amounted to fifty rupees or more — a threshold set in 1860 and never revised, with the result that virtually every case of mischief qualified for the higher punishment. The BNS consolidates all of this into Section 324 and grades it by value. Sub-section (1) defines the offence. Sub-section (2) punishes mischief generally with up to six months, twice the IPC's three months. Sub-section (3) covers mischief causing loss or damage to any property, including property of the Government or a local authority, with up to one year. Sub-section (4) applies where the loss or damage is ₹20,000 or more but less than ₹1,00,000, carrying up to two years. Sub-section (5) applies where it is ₹1,00,000 or more, carrying up to five years.

How this section is distinguished from related offences

Mischief requires damage to property and the intention or knowledge that wrongful loss would follow; where property is taken rather than damaged, the offence is theft under BNS 303. The aggravated forms of mischief remain separate and more serious: mischief by fire or explosive substance, mischief to a decree, and mischief affecting irrigation works, public roads, bridges or navigation each have their own provisions carrying much higher punishments. Where the damage occurred in the course of entering property unlawfully, the criminal trespass provisions at BNS 329 and following are commonly charged alongside. Where a dispute over ownership underlies the incident, the question is often whether any wrongful loss was caused at all, since a person damaging their own property commits no offence.

How the case proceeds

Which sub-section applies determines almost everything about the case, and it turns on a valuation. Because the tiers sit at ₹20,000 and ₹1,00,000, the assessment of loss is contested far more actively than it was under the IPC, where the fifty-rupee threshold made the exercise meaningless. Cases in the lower tiers are tried by a magistrate and are frequently compounded, since mischief is compoundable in many circumstances with the court's permission.

Evidence that usually decides these cases

Two things have to be established and both are commonly contested. The first is the damage itself, proved through photographs taken before repair, an inspection report, and the repair or replacement records. The second is valuation, which now determines the applicable sub-section and therefore the seriousness of the charge; independent estimates carry far more weight than the figure asserted in the complaint. Beyond that, the prosecution must connect the accused to the act, and CCTV is disproportionately valuable because property damage is a discrete physical event that footage settles. Where the parties are in an existing dispute over the property, the documents establishing rights over it frequently decide whether wrongful loss was caused at all.

How courts approach sentencing

Six months for mischief generally under sub-section (2); one year where loss or damage is caused to any property including Government or local authority property under sub-section (3); two years where the loss is ₹20,000 or more but under ₹1,00,000 under sub-section (4); and five years where it is ₹1,00,000 or more under sub-section (5). Each carries a fine as an alternative or in addition. Restitution of the loss weighs heavily in practice and often accompanies compounding.

Defences that commonly apply

The most effective defence is frequently on valuation rather than on liability, since moving the assessed loss below a threshold moves the case into a materially lighter tier. Absence of intention or knowledge is the substantive answer: damage caused accidentally, without the intention to cause wrongful loss and without knowledge that it was likely, does not satisfy the section. Where the accused had a genuine claim of right over the property — as an owner, a co-owner, a tenant entitled to make alterations, or a person acting under a contractual right — the wrongful loss element is contested directly, and the case often reduces to a civil dispute. Where the complaint follows a property or tenancy disagreement, the sequence of events is routinely relied on.

How a case under this section typically progresses

The matter proceeds as a magistrate's case in the lower tiers and is comparatively short. Because mischief is compoundable in many circumstances with the court's permission, and because the underlying disputes are usually between neighbours, landlords and tenants, or parties to a property disagreement, a large proportion of these cases are settled, frequently on payment of the repair cost. Where the higher tiers or the aggravated forms are invoked, the case is treated more seriously and takes correspondingly longer.

Documents worth gathering early

Photograph the damage before any repair is carried out, since the condition of the property afterwards cannot be reconstructed. Obtain independent repair or replacement estimates and, where available, an insurance surveyor's assessment, because valuation now determines which sub-section applies. Keep the invoices for any repair actually done. Request CCTV covering the property in writing immediately. Where ownership, tenancy or a right over the property is in issue, assemble the sale deed, lease, society records or sanctioned plan, since these frequently determine whether any wrongful loss was caused. Preserve correspondence with the other party from before the incident, as it usually reveals what the dispute was actually about.

Note on bail and cognizability. Whether an offence is cognizable, and whether it is bailable, is set by the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, not by the BNS section itself. Because that classification decides whether police can arrest without a warrant and how bail is approached, check it for your specific section with an advocate rather than relying on a general summary.

If you have been named under this section

Establish which sub-section has been invoked and on what valuation, because the difference between the tiers is the difference between six months and five years. Valuations in FIRs are routinely asserted rather than evidenced, and an independent assessment — a repair estimate, an insurance assessment, a surveyor's report — is the most direct way to move a case into a lower tier. Where the underlying dispute concerns ownership or a right over the property, the documents establishing that position often answer the charge entirely.

Common misunderstandings

"The fifty-rupee threshold still applies."
It is gone. The BNS grades mischief at ₹20,000 and ₹1,00,000. The ₹50 figure belonged to IPC 427 and had been unchanged since 1860.

"Mischief is always a minor offence."
Where the loss is ₹1,00,000 or more the maximum is five years, and the aggravated forms involving fire, explosives or public works carry considerably more.

"Damaging your own property can be mischief."
The offence requires wrongful loss or damage to the public or to another person. Where the property is genuinely the accused's own and no other person suffers loss, the ingredient is missing — though joint ownership complicates this.

"The punishment for ordinary mischief is unchanged."
It doubled, from three months under IPC 426 to six months under BNS 324(2).

Related BNS sections

• BNS 324 — Mischief
• BNS 303 — Theft (IPC 379)
• BNS 326 — Mischief by fire or explosive substance
• BNS 329 — Criminal trespass and house-trespass (IPC 441, 447)

Which code applies to your case

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 replaced the Indian Penal Code 1860 with effect from 1 July 2024, and the change is not retrospective. The date the offence is alleged to have been committed decides which code governs it. An offence alleged to have occurred on or after 1 July 2024 proceeds under the BNS. An offence alleged to have occurred before that date continues to be investigated, tried, appealed and punished under the IPC, even where the FIR was registered later. Cases from the transition period frequently cite both numbering systems, which is why the old section number remains worth knowing.

Named under this section? Ask the free AI Advocate →

General information for understanding the IPC→BNS change, not legal advice. The BNS restructured many offences — confirm the exact section, sub-section and punishment with a licensed advocate.