IPC Section 341 - Punishment for Wrongful Restraint

Bare reading of the section:

IPC Section 339 : Wrongful restraint.

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 offence within the meaning of this section.

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.

IPC Section 341 : Punishment for wrongful restraint.

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 hundred rupees, or with both.

Among all other rights we enjoy, we have the right to move freely in this country. According to Article 19(d) of the Constitution of India states that “All the citizens have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India”. Not just free movement but we also enjoy personal liberty under Article 21. In easy words, the citizens of India get the freedom from physical restraint of the person by wrongful imprisonment. The Constitution provides various provisions if a person is deprived of personal liberty under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section-399, Wrongful Restraint:

The word ‘wrongful’ according to law means unfair or injurious. In other words, ‘wrongful’ indicates unlawful activities which amount to a civil wrong. The word ‘restraint’ means that when a condition or situation is created through which an individual is wrongfully kept under control. As per Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, wrongful restraint is defined as, “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person 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.” This Section was constituted to secure an individual or a group from getting deprived of their guaranteed personal liberty. 

To constitute the crime of committing wrongful restraint, the person who was deprived of their liberty must face an obstruction. Other than that, the person who faced the obstruction must feel that they are deprived or not given access to proceed in the direction they desired to proceed in the first place. The last and main component that is required for it to be called a crime is that the victim must have the right to proceed in the desired direction in the first place.

The main purpose behind constructing this Section is to ensure that an individual’s freedom is protected at any cost. We are eligible to move around the country in any direction we want and that is why the law must make sure that we get what we deserve. That is why even if someone experiences the slightest inconvenience in this context, it will be considered as wrongful restraint. By the term ‘slightest inconvenience’, the author means to say that the obstruction someone faces should not necessarily be physical and the presence of the accused party is not mandatory for it to be considered as an example of wrongful restraint under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code. The reason behind this rule is that the act of assault isn’t the only way someone can obstruct an individual’s way as mere words can cause obstruction and that is why it may constitute a crime under this section.

Examples:

1. Sam is walking towards the city garden and Ken deliberately obstructs the path to make sure that Sam doesn’t reach the garden. In this case, Sam has the right to pass and go to the city's public garden but as soon as Ken blocks her path, it is determined that Ken has wrongfully restrained her from passing.
2. Piyush is helping his neighbor Komal fix her roof but can’t do it. Komal removed the ladder and threatened him that she would not give him the ladder back until he repaired her roof damage. This is a classic example of wrongful restraint as Komal detained Piyush on the roof of her house therefore Komal will be held liable for obstructing Piyush’s path.

Exception:

Even though the meaning of wrongful restraint is defined clearly, some exceptions make Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code even more specific. The exception in this Section states that if a person in good faith (good faith being the keyword) feels that they need to obstruct someone’s pathway over land and/or water, then it will not amount to wrongful restraint.

Example: Ridhi was about to enter the ATM near her house but she was stopped by Shrey. They tried to stop her from entering the ATM as there was a snake trapped inside. In this example, Shrey tried to stop her with good faith therefore this will not constitute wrongful restraint.

Section-341, Punishment for Wrongful Restraint:

As briefly mentioned above, Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the punishments that shall be used as remedies for wrongfully restraining an individual from moving towards a direction, place, etc. provided the fact that the person has the right to go there. This section states, “Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may not extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”

The word restraint means that the individual’s liberty has been compromised against his will and that’s what makes it different. Amongst many other reasons, a vital reason behind implementing this provision was because the Constitution of India believes the Right to Freedom of Movement of every individual in this country throughout the territory of India is crucial and that is the reason why our Constitution has catered to such rights by providing Article 19 and Article 21 as both these articles guarantee that every citizen of the country shall enjoy the Right to Personal Liberty. 

Ambiguity is a concept that makes it easier for us to establish a proper set of laws depending on the situation and that is why we can say that liberty is not absolute. It can be turned and twisted depending on the public interest and by simply following the legal procedure. In this case, when we talk about the compromise of an individual’s right to movement, complaining about the accused before a magistrate is the first step to take as per the legal procedure, keeping in mind the fact that the nature of the act is a prime factor that should be considered before complaining. The vital element that is necessary to inspect Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is the keyword ‘obstruction’. Obstruction is necessary for it to be considered as an offense and it should be directly attributed to the person accused. The person who has been accused of committing this offense must know or have a reason for causing the obstruction or for restraining the person from moving.

The main reasons that are considered before constituting an act as an offense of wrongfully restraining someone should be that the act of restraining someone must be voluntary and that the act of restraining someone must be in good faith as mentioned above. Therefore, if an obstruction is made in good faith, the accused is said to have committed no crime.