This post was originally based on old criminal laws, which have now been revised under the new criminal laws, the 2023 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha adhiniyam (BNSS), and 2023 Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). The new amendments in criminal laws mark a transformative shift in the Indian legal landscape, addressing emerging challenges and ensuring greater protection of rights. These changes include the introduction of more stringent provisions for cybercrimes, sexual offences, and crimes against vulnerable groups. In response, the law notes have been thoroughly revised to incorporate these updates, providing readers with detailed analyses and practical implications of the new laws. The updated notes aim to equip students and professionals with the knowledge to explore the evolving legal framework effectively.
Wrongful restraint
The term ‘Wrongful restraint’ denotes a willful obstruction of any individual in order to keep that individual from continuing toward any path in which that individual has the privilege to continue.
According to section 126 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023, “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed is said wrongfully to restrain that person”.
Illustration
A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass. A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.
Exception
The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct is not an offence within the meaning of this section.
Punishment
Punishment for wrongful restraint is defined under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code,1860-
“Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both”.
Classification of offence
i. Punishment - Simple Imprisonment for 1 Month or Fine or both.
ii. Bailable- if an offence is bailable, police have the authority to release the accused on bail on getting the defined surety amount along with a duly filled bail bond at the concerned police station. Otherwise, an arrested person has to apply for bail before a magistrate or court.
iii. Cognizable offence and triable by any Magistrate- If an offence is cognizable, police has the authority to arrest the accused without a warrant and to start an investigation with or without the permission of a court. Otherwise, the police do not have the authority to arrest the accused without a warrant and an investigation cannot be initiated without a court order.
iv. This offence is compoundable by the person restrained- If an offence is compoundable, a compromise can be made between the accused and the victim, and a trial can be avoided. Otherwise, No compromise is allowed between the accused and the victim except under certain situations, where the High Court or the Supreme Court have the authority for quashing a matter.
Case Laws and Examples
Understanding the legal interpretation of Section 126 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) requires analysing notable cases where courts have applied this provision. Judicial precedents provide insight into how wrongful restraint is interpreted and enforced.
i.Vijay Kumari Magee vs. Smt. S.R. Rao (1996 Cri. L.J. 1371, S.C.):
Fact: After the termination of her hostel room license, a lady teacher was denied entry by the school authorities, leading to allegations of wrongful restraint.
Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that wrongful restraint requires the person concerned to have a right to proceed. In this case, the court found that the teacher’s right to enter the premises was unjustly obstructed, thus constituting wrongful restraint.
ii. Re M. Abraham (AIR 1950 Mad. 233):
Fact: A bus driver intentionally stopped the bus, obstructing another bus from proceeding further.
Judgment: The court held that the driver’s action constituted wrongful restraint as soon as the obstruction occurred, regardless of whether physical force was used. This case highlighted that wrongful restraint can occur without physical contact.
iii. State of Gujarat v. Maganbhai Jogani (AIR 2009 S.C 2594):
Fact: Officers making an inquiry were briefly restrained in the accused’s house without the use of force.
Judgment: The court ruled that the accused did not commit wrongful restraint as there was no use of force or threat thereof. This case emphasised that the mere act of stopping someone without force might not always constitute wrongful restraint.
iv. S.A. Aziz vs. Pasam Haribabu (2003 6 Cri.L.J. 2462, A.P.):
Fact: A police officer arrested a person wrongfully under a non-bailable warrant and detained him for a week.
Judgment: The High Court found the police officer guilty of wrongful confinement, clarifying that physical force is not necessary for wrongful restraint or confinement. The case reinforced that misuse of legal authority can lead to charges of wrongful restraint??.
Wrongful confinement
The term ‘wrongful confinement’ has been explained under Section 127 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023, which lays down that whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, said “wrongfully to confine” that person.
Illustrations
(a) A causes Z to go within a walled space and locks Z in. A is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of the wall. A wrongfully confines Z.
(b) A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z attempts to leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.
(2) Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.
(3) Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days, or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
(4) Whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees.
(5) Whoever keeps any person in wrongful confinement, knowing that a writ for the liberation of that person has been duly issued, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any term of imprisonment to which he may be liable under any other section of this Chapter and shall also be liable to fine.
(6) Whoever wrongfully confines any person in such manner as to indicate an intention that the confinement of such person may not be known to any person interested in the person so confined, or to any public servant, or that the place of such confinement may not be known to or discovered by any such person or public servant as hereinbefore mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement and shall also be liable to fine.
(7) Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined, or from any person interested in the person confined, any property or valuable security or of constraining the person confined or any person interested in such person to do anything illegal or to give any information which may facilitate the commission of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(8) Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting from the person confined or any person interested in the person confined any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the person confined or any person interested in the person confined to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
