Chapter XXXIV
Section 456 CrPC: Power to restore possession of immovable property
New Law Update (2024)
Section 480 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Trial Court, Appellate Court, Revisional Court
Punishment
Procedural – Appeals / Revision
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) When a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation, and it appears to the Court that, by such force or show of force or intimidation, any person has been dispossessed of any immovable property, the Court may, if it thinks fit, order that possession of the same be restored to that person after evicting by force, if necessary, any other person who may be in possession of the property; Provided that no such order shall be made by the Court more than one month after the date of the conviction.
(2) Where the Court trying the offence has not made an order under Sub-Section (1), the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision may, if it thinks fit, make such order while disposing of the appeal, reference or revision, as the case may be.
(3) Where an order has been made under Sub-Section (1), the provisions of Section 454 shall apply in relation thereto as they apply in relation to an order under Section 453.
(4) No order made under this section shall prejudice any right or interest to or in such immovable property which any person may be able to establish in a civil suit.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 456(1)
This sub-section empowers a criminal court, upon convicting a person for an offence involving criminal force or intimidation, to order the restoration of immovable property to the dispossessed person. However, this order must be made within one month from the date of conviction.
Section 456(4)
This crucial sub-section clarifies that any order for property restoration made under Section 456 does not prejudice or affect any existing rights or interests over that property, which can still be established or challenged by any person through a separate civil suit.
Landmark Judgements
Bhagwati v. State of U.P. (1976):
This case clarified that an order for restoration of possession under Section 456 CrPC is discretionary and can only be passed if there is a direct nexus between the conviction for an offence involving criminal force and the dispossession of immovable property. The court must be satisfied that the dispossession occurred as a direct consequence of the force or show of force for which the accused was convicted.
Phulchand v. State of Rajasthan (1983):
The High Court held that the power conferred by Section 456 is incidental to a criminal conviction and is not intended to be a substitute for comprehensive civil remedies. It emphasized that a conviction for an offence involving criminal force, or intimidation, directly causing dispossession, is a fundamental prerequisite for exercising this power, which should be used judiciously.