This article has been written by Mr. Rohan Madhok, a 5th year BBA.LLB student from Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIPU, New Delhi
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Constitution under article 19(1)(d) guarantees to each of its citizens a right to freedom of movement throughout the territory of India. There is an overlap between article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e) which constitutes the right to freely reside in any part of the country. The term ‘freely’ implies without any kind of restriction, which means a person can move wherever and however he likes without any impediment. One of many ways this right can be encroached upon is wrongful restraint, which is an offense relating to the human body under the Indian Penal Code 1860, it is an offense that involves an obstruction caused voluntarily in the path of another person with the malafide intention to prevent that person from going in a particular direction.
WRONGFUL RESTRAINT
Restraint can be defined as curtailing the liberty of a person against his own will. Wrongful restraint means stopping a person from moving from one location to another place where he intends to be. Basically wrongful restraint constitutes obstructing any person from moving in any direction in which he wishes to proceed.
The term ‘wrongful restraint’ refers to any act that deprives a person of their freedom of movement without lawful justification or excuse. The restraint may be physical or mental, and the offender must have the intention to cause such restraint. For instance, if a person forcibly holds another person’s hand and does not allow them to move freely, it will amount to wrongful restraint.
The Indian Penal Code 1860 under section 339 defines wrongful restraint as a specific offense against the human body. It says that 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.
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 offense within the meaning of this section.
Wrongful restraint can be understood in a better way from this example, R blocks a path along which N has a right to pass, and R without any good faith prevents N from passing therefore we can say that R wrongfully restrains N.
Ingredients of the offense of wrongful restraint
Obstruction is caused by any person to another person
The above-mentioned obstruction is caused by the person voluntarily
The obstruction caused by the person must be such as to stop that person from going in any direction in which he has a right to go
If the prevention caused to the victim is done in good faith and the person accused of causing wrongful restraint believes that he has a lawful right to prevent another person from moving in any particular direction, the offense of wrongful restraint would not have been committed. A person’s actions would be considered justified if he prevents another person from entering into a private way, through land or water, over which he has a legal right to obstruct.
In the case of Raja Ram v state of Haryana 1972 SCC (Cr) 193, the court observed that the obstruction of a person must be voluntary, and the obstruction should be of that level that it is able to prevent that person from going into any particular way, in which he has an absolute legal right to proceed. The obstruction under this section can be caused not only by physical force but also by words and threats. However, where a person is deprived of his will to move by sleep, that would not be tantamount to wrongful restraint.
Section 341 of the Indian Penal code 1860 provides the punishment for wrongful restraint. It says that whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
The punishment for wrongful restraint is relatively mild, but it can have serious consequences for the offender. In addition to imprisonment or a fine, the victim of wrongful restraint may also sue the offender for damages in a civil court. Moreover, if the restraint is accompanied by the use of force or violence, the offender may be charged with more serious offenses such as assault or battery. The offense of wrongful restraint is non-bailable, which means that the offender cannot get bail as a matter of right. However, the court may grant bail at its discretion, taking into account the severity of the offense, the likelihood of the offender absconding, and other relevant factors.
Case laws
1) Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani, (2009) 6 SCC 475
In this case, the appellants were the directors of a company that owned a property which was a villa. The property was occupied by the first respondent. The appellants as Managing Director and Directors took a decision on behalf of the Company to get the access road leading to the villa repaired through a contractor. The respondent was against this decision and therefore when repair work started, he filed a complaint with the police that the appellants who were repairing the road should not be allowed to do this.
The first respondent subsequently initiated criminal proceedings against the Managing Director and Directors of the Company, and also against Architect, on the ground that they had committed the offence of wrongful restraint under Sections 339 and 341, Penal Code, 1860, because the first respondent and his family members were obstructed due to alleged illegal repair of the road.
The Supreme court held that It is one thing to say that the Company had asked Accused 6 (Architect) to do construction but only because Accused 1 to 5 were its Directors, the same would not be sufficient to fasten any criminal liability on them for the commission of an offense under Section 341 IPC or otherwise, The word “voluntary in Section 339 connotes that obstruction should be direct. The obstruction must be a restriction on the normal movement of a person. It should be a physical one. The accused persons should have a common Intention to cause obstruction. The appellants were not at the site. They did not carry out any work. No overt act or physical obstruction on their part is attributed. In spite of the fact that the road was under construction, the first respondent was not obstructed in as much as he was able to go to the police station three times. It cannot, therefore, be said in a situation of this nature that the Managing Director and Directors of the Company and Architect have committed an offense under Section 341 IPC.
2) Rajinder Singh Katoch v. Chandigarh Admn., (2007) 10 SCC 69
An allegation was made under section 399 IPC of wrongful restraint by a co-sharer preventing him from enjoying his property. The Supreme Court held that the right of a co-sharer to enjoy the joint-family property is a civil right and Such a right if denied by the other co-sharers must be enforced by taking recourse to Civil remedies instead of opting for Criminal proceedings to enforce such right.
3) Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya 1954 CrLJ 283 Mad
In this case, both the accused and complainant were the joint owners of a well and therefore both of them had the right to use the water from the well. However the accused prevented the complainant from using the water in the well, moreover, he also obstructed the bullocks of the complainant from moving. The court held that the accused was guilty of an offense under section 399 of the Indian Penal Code.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, wrongful restraint is a serious offense under the Indian Penal Code, and offenders can face imprisonment, fines, and civil suits for damages. It is important for individuals to be aware of their rights and to seek legal recourse if they are victims of wrongful restraint. Furthermore, the criminal justice system should ensure that those who engage in this type of behavior are held accountable for their actions.
REFERENCES
2) https://blog.ipleaders.in/wrongful-restraint-wrongful-confinement/
4) Article 19(1)(d) of Constitution of India, 1950
5) Article 19(1)(e) of Constitution of India, 1950
6) Section 339 of Indian Penal code 1860
7) Section 341 of Indian Penal code 1860
8) K.D. GAUR’S CRIMINAL LAW CASES AND MATERIALS: NINTH EDITION
9) Raja Ram v state of Haryana 1972 SCC (Cr) 193
10) Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani, (2009) 6 SCC 475
11) Rajinder Singh Katoch v. Chandigarh Admn., (2007) 10 SCC 69
12) Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya 1954 CrLJ 283 Mad
Aishwarya Says:
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening