Ingredients

'wrongful restraint. The cssential ingredients 'wrongful

tial ingredients of afs...

(11) the obstruction me.u restrai

defincs
Section 339
obstruction of a person, and restraint
nust be such
Such
arc: () voluntary
that from procceding in any he has right
direction in which he has a rio
to to
prevent person procecd,
verbal prohibition constitutes wrongful restraine S do.
t. 341
Physical obstruction by mere
but f
with the effect of the meansM
the means.
Mere
341 does
not deal with the
mcans of restraint,

demonstration will not constitute wrongful

restraint. In wrongful restrainion direction
o
raint, or
physical
accuscd is not necessary. Where,
always
fore, the complaina
therefore,
presence of house and during their temporary absence. th
andhis
wife and daughter occupicd a accused
scd pur
a lock on the outer
door and thereby
obstructed them from getting
into the
house, put
itt was
as
the accused was guilty of wrongful restraint.
However, a house.
the door leaves of the main entrane who
held that
his t e n a n t by closing one of
restrained
partially restraint as the complainant had sufficient pase
was nor held guilty of wrongtul

move in and out.

The 'wrong defined is a wrong against a person and if a man is prevented fro

hisanimal or cart along with him in one direction, that will not be an offe
taking
complainant driving a bullock cart was obstmrd
within the section. Thus, where the
from taking his cart through the passage, but there was no obstruction to th
complainant passing through the passage alone without the cart, it was held that there
could be no conviction for wrongful restraint, for though the complainant was hindered
from driving his cart through the passage, he himself was unobstructed. But it would
amount to wrongful restraint if a person was going to his field with his bulls through a
pathway and the accused came there and obstructed him and his bulls and beat and
drove away the bulls and the complainant, by fearing that if he proceeded further he
would also be beaten, came away.
Obstruction to vehicle alone does not constitute 'wrongful restraint as defined n
s 339 as obstruction of a person only comes within its purview. Only obstruction to
plying or parking of a vehicle in a particular place does not amount to wrongtul restraint
as there is no obstruction to human body. An obstruction caused to a vehicle carrying
passengers amounts to wrongful restraint of the passengers. The fact that the passenges
are free to get down and proceed to the desired direction does not take the obstrictou
to the passengers outside the ambit of
wrongful restraint.

1 Re
2 Re
Shanmugham (1971) Cr LJ 182 (Mad).
Subba Row (1908) 8 Cr LJ 212.
A a NadarEmperor (1910) 11 Cr LJ 708 (Mad), also see Paritosh Chowdhary v Spra oue
(1988) Cr LJ 1299 (Cal).
4 Shankar Chandra Ghosh v Roopraj S Bhansally (1981) Cr LJ 1002 (Cal).
5 Ram Laia
(1912) 15 Bom LR 103.
6 Madala Periah v Voruganti AlR 1954 Mad 247, (1954) Cr LJ 283
p d a vNalin Ghosh AIR 1935 Cal 252: Shankar Lal Sharma (Mad). v State of Assanm (19/
Gau).
a Wilson v State of Himachal Pradesh (1992) Cr LI 2400 (HP), 1991 (2) Shim 1
9 Madhabv Nalini AlR 1964 Cal 286.
 Wrongful Restraint and
Wrongful Confinement
The offence is
determined by the eftect caused and not by
which wrongtul restraint is
brought about. the nature of the act by
In Raja Ram v State of 10
Haryana, a woman and a
he police station for
interrogation. The proviso to
13-year old boy were summoned to
uOman or a male under 15 years of age should be 160, CrPC, provides that no0
s

interrogation. Instead, they must be interrogated atsummoned

the
to the police station for

acCused, a police officer, was tound guilty of infringing s place whereIt they reside. The
view of this,
160, CFPC. was held that in
detaining
of a woman and a 13-year old boy in the
police station would
amount to wrongful restraint. The accused was found
guilty under s 341, IPC, but not
under s 342, IPC.
In Vijay Kumari Magee v Smt SM Rao,"11 the complainant was in occupation of a
room in the campus of Victoria School. A letter was addressed to her on 1 October
stating that since the managing committee has decided not to allow outsiders to reside in
the campus, she was to vacate the room. The complainant asked for some extension of
time to vacate the room, as the notice given was very short. Since she failed to vacate by
from entering her room and
end October, her room was locked and she was prevented
Court held that no offence under s 341 was
thus wrongfully restrained. The Supreme
the complainant had 'no right to proceed in the direction, viz, enter the
established, as
out as to what is wrongtul restraint, only
if a
hostel room. As per s 339, which spells
can an obstruction of the same
proceed in a particular direction,
person has a right to
had no right to enter the room
restraint. Since, the complainant
amount to 'wrongful under s 341 was made out.
allotment, no offence
On the cancellation of
her
imprisonment for a term
erm
punishable by simple
is
restraint hundred
A person guilty of wrongful to five
rupees, or
both.
or a fine of up
up to one month,
Ingredients
confinement. It is a form of 'wrongfiul
Section 340 dcfines 'wrongfiul
of 'wrongful confincmentt arc: (1) wrong ul restraint
straint. The
essential ingredicnts of the offence that pe son from procccding
restraint must be to prevcnt
oft a person, and (i) the limits bcyond which (s)hc has right to .
beyond certain circumscribing There
must be total restraint and not a partial onc.
of
the victim
was the son a wealthy hue
In Decp Chand v Statr of Rajasthan,"
entered his room and onc of them had a revolver sinessman
One day. rwo masked men
he made any noise. They took k him outs The rwo
thrcatcned to shoot him if ide, where
pcrsons covered with a cloth
two camcls werc waiting.
The face ot the victim was They took
him on the camel for somc distance, and
thereafter, he was taken to the he se of the
for 17 days. He was force
accused where he was confined to
a ransom of Rs 50,000
from the victim s father. Atter the ransom amrs
demand
paid, they released the victim. Thercafter, the accused were identified and char wasler
and were convicted under these sections.
ss347, 365, 382 and 452, IPC,
Syam Lal Sharma State of Madhya Pradesh, it
was
learnt that certain offe
In demanding
were bribes atv a trafftic barrier from the drivers of the vehicles A.cals
rap was
office and recovered the notes which were given. Th
laid. A circde inspector raided the
was done without a warrant and also demanded thar
accused objected to the search as it
the search memo and he was
a search memo be given.
The circle inspector agreed to give
of the oftice and was on the road, he was forcibly
allowed to go. But, after he went out
and thrown on a chair. He was confined there and
seized, lifted, taken into the office with the demand that he gives in writing
threatened with a lathi, till he had complied
barrier. It was contended that since the search was
that he had conducted a search of the
under s 165, CrPC, the accused had
conducted in violation of the procedure prescribed
with the
a right to obstruct the
search. The Supreme Court, however, found fault
where after the circle inspector was allowed to
behaviour of the accused, subsequently
held that s 342, IPC, was not confined
o
leave, he was wrongfully restrained. It was
section and makes a person who
offences against public servants, but is a general
restrains another, guilty of the offence under
that section. A wrongnul
wrongtully
continement is a wrongtul restraint in such a manner, as to prevent that person tro
convicted under
certain circumscribed limits. The accused
were
proceeding beyond a

ss 342 and 353, IPC.

convicted tor wronghul
In Shamsudheen v State of Kerala," the petitioners w e r e macter

their place to investigate t shown

Confinement of rwo police officers, who went to
court held that the degree of defranccs
regarding wrongful confinement of X. The enforcement could not be
condoned, except
rule ot
by the petitioners to the officers of law based on
government a law
peril to values fundamental to the existence of a system of
law. Rule of law postulates duties and not rights alone. The petitioners chosc
o be
o l i c e othces n

unto themselves and acted in a high handed manner by keeping ne p

wrongful confinement. ot
g O v e r e

foundation Derativethat
If such acts are viewed leniently, that would erode the i sis tnus inyperat
It
established by law. Might should notbe allowed to subdue law.
7.
(2004) 4 S
halk v State of Maharashtra AlR 2004 SC 1677,
13 AIR 1961
14 AIR 1972 SC
886, (1972) 1 SCC 764.
15 (1989) Cr LJ 2068 (Ker).

688
 Wrongul Kestraint ana
wrongul Confinement
should be imposed. In the
ntence
ners to pay fine of one thousand rupeescircumstances,
errent
dete
the sentence
each was enhanced, and imposed
on
P ners was sentenced to Suffer simple each of the
petitio

imprisonment for two months, in addition to

he fine already imposed.
Similarly, the police officer who illegally confined a
person for five days in a chapter
case under s 107 of the CrPC is held guilty under s 16
342,
In Jay Engineering Works v State of West Bengal," gherao
(physical blockade of a
either by encircle ment intended to blockade the ingress or egress from andtarget, toa
particular offtice, workplace, etc) was held to be illegal, amounting to the criminal
offences of wrongtul restraint and wrongful confinement. In this case, a large number of
labourers gheraoed the management staf without giving them freedom to move about.
The government also issued circulars restraining the police from interfering without
obtaining the permission of the labour minister. The Calcutta High Court quashed
these circulars asultra vires of the Constitution, infringing art 14.
continement is punishable by simple or rigorous
A person guilty of wrongful to one thousand or both.
one year of
or a fine up rupees
imprisonment for a term up to
Y naful Confinement