Section 291 IPC: Continuance of Public Nuisance After Injunction
Section 291 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 punished a person who repeated or continued a public nuisance after being lawfully directed by an authorized public servant not to repeat or continue it.
Text of Section 291 IPC
Section 291 - Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue. Whoever repeats or continues a public nuisance, having been enjoined by any public servant who has lawful authority to issue such injunction not to repeat or continue such nuisance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Meaning of public nuisance under Section 268 IPC
For the IPC framework, the expression "public nuisance" was defined by Section 268 IPC. Broadly, a person committed a public nuisance by doing an act, or by being guilty of an illegal omission, which caused common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to people generally living or occupying property in the vicinity, or which necessarily caused injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who might have occasion to use a public right.
Section 268 also provided that a common nuisance was not excused merely because it caused some convenience or advantage.
Essential ingredients of Section 291 IPC
Section 291 was not attracted merely because a public nuisance existed. Its distinguishing feature was the repetition or continuance of the nuisance after a lawful injunction had been issued by a competent public servant.
- A public nuisance within the meaning of Section 268 IPC must exist.
- A public servant must have issued an injunction directing the person not to repeat or continue that nuisance.
- The public servant issuing the injunction must have lawful authority to issue it.
- The person must thereafter repeat or continue the public nuisance contrary to that injunction.
Punishment and classification under the pre-BNS law
| Offence | Repeating or continuing a public nuisance after a lawful injunction to discontinue it |
|---|---|
| Punishment | Simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both |
| Cognizable | Yes - cognizable |
| Bailable | Yes - bailable |
| Triable by | Any Magistrate |
Lawful injunction by a competent public servant
The wording of Section 291 required more than a request or informal warning. The injunction had to be issued by a public servant possessing lawful authority to direct that the nuisance should not be repeated or continued. The existence and legal authority of the injunction were therefore material to the application of Section 291.
CrPC provisions relating to public nuisance
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Chapter X contained provisions dealing with public nuisances. Section 133 empowered specified Executive Magistrates to make conditional orders for removal of certain nuisances. Section 142 permitted an injunction pending inquiry where immediate measures were required to prevent imminent danger or serious injury to the public.
Section 143 CrPC specifically empowered a District Magistrate, Sub-divisional Magistrate, or another Executive Magistrate duly empowered for that purpose to order a person not to repeat or continue a public nuisance as defined in the IPC or under a special or local law. These preventive powers formed part of the procedural framework relevant to public nuisances before commencement of the BNSS.
Difference between Section 290 and Section 291 IPC
Section 290 IPC prescribed the residual punishment for committing a public nuisance in a case not otherwise punishable by the IPC. Section 291 addressed the more specific situation in which a person repeated or continued a public nuisance after a competent public servant had lawfully enjoined the person not to do so.
Accordingly, the existence of a prior lawful injunction and the subsequent repetition or continuance of the nuisance were central features distinguishing Section 291 from the general residual offence under Section 290.
Position after commencement of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. The corresponding provision is Section 293 BNS - Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue. It continues to provide simple imprisonment up to six months, but expressly provides for a fine which may extend to Rs. 5,000, or both.
This page is maintained as an IPC reference explaining the legal position before implementation of the BNS. Section 291 IPC should not be treated as the current BNS section number for conduct governed by the new criminal law.
Frequently asked questions
What was the punishment under Section 291 IPC?
A person convicted under Section 291 IPC could be punished with simple imprisonment for up to six months, or with fine, or with both.
Was Section 291 IPC cognizable?
Yes. Under the pre-BNS and pre-BNSS classification, the offence under Section 291 IPC was cognizable.
Was Section 291 IPC bailable?
Yes. The offence was bailable.
Who could try an offence under Section 291 IPC?
The offence was triable by any Magistrate.
Which provision defined public nuisance?
Section 268 IPC defined public nuisance. Section 291 applied when such a nuisance was repeated or continued after a lawful injunction by a public servant authorized to issue it.
What is the corresponding BNS section?
Section 293 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponds to Section 291 IPC. It provides simple imprisonment up to six months, or fine up to Rs. 5,000, or both.