Meaning :

An individual’s freedom can be restricted without their consent. Keeping a man from traveling from one location where he has a right to be and wishes to go to another is considered wrongful Restraint. A man being prevented from moving in a direction he chooses and has the right to move is considered to be exercising .

Definition

Section 339 of Indian Penal Code defines 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 .

The expression ‘Wrongful restraint’ means “infliction of a bodily restraint upon the freedom of a person”. If the restraint is partial, it is called wrongful Restraint and is an offence under Sec 339 I.P.C. If the restraint is total it is called ‘Wrongful Confinement” and is an offence under I.P.C Sec. 340. To Constitute Wrongful restraint physical obstruction or presence of the accused is not necessary. Mere words would constitute the offence. There must exist imposition of bodily restraint upon the freedom of a person. Such restraint must be partial and to prevent the ordinary movements of the person.

Illustration :

Amar obstructs a path along which Ram has a right to pass. Amar not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Ram is thereby prevented from passing. Amar wrongfully restrains Ram.

Essentials :

1) A person causes to obstruction to any person

2) Such obstruction is caused voluntarily

3) The obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has right to proceed.

If obstruction is made in good faith and the accused believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, no offence is committed, A person is justified in obstructing another from entering into a private way, over land or water, over which he has a legal right obstruct.

Punishment for Wrongful Restraint (Section 341)

Whoever wrongfully restraints any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or which fine may extend to five hundred rupees ,or with both.

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 339.of I.P.C

Sobha Rani Vs. The King,1950 Cr. L.J 668 The accused, a landlord obstructed/ prevented the tenant from using the bath room. The accused was held guilty of wrongful restraint under Sec.339.

In the case of State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai MaganbhaiGujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj), it was discussed by the court that “For a charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical restriction is not essential. It is sufficient if the evidence shows that such an impression was produced in the mind of the victim, a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he was not free to depart. If the impression creates that the complainant would be forthwith seized or restrained if he attempts to escape, a reasonable apprehension of the use of the force rather than its actual use is sufficient and important.”

In the case of Shankarlal Sarma (Bhatra) vs State of Assam And Another on 4 March 1975. There was one common Ejmali passage among a few brothers where their vehicles would come and go. There was also a garage where their vehicles were parked. The complainant had parked his Fiat car inside the garage. Shankarlal Sharma, the complainant’s elder brother (the petitioner) parked his car in front by blocking the passage. As a result of which, the complainant was obstructed to take out his car from there. The court held that the Ejmali passage was a common passage to be used by the brothers and not a private passage. Therefore, the petitioner who parked his vehicle in the passage believed it to be done in good faith, he also had a lawful right to do so. Hence, they have not obstructed anyone’s private way or prevented anybody from passing. This comes under the exceptions of Section 339. Thus, he cannot be held guilty under wrongful restraint.

Conclusion:

According to section 339 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, “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”.Wrongful Restraint can be thought of as a circle because it comprises several sorts, in contrast to constraint of life, which affirms restriction on a person’s movement.