Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution grants everyone the right to freedom of movement and personal liberty throughout the country.

 In order to achieve the Constitution’s goal, the Indian Penal Code establishes penalties for anybody who infringes on another’s freedom of movement or personal liberty. This is done to protect an individual’s right to privacy.

Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement are defined in sections 339 and 340 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively.

Wrongful restraint and confinement are punished under Sections 339 to 348 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code;

“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.”

Furthermore, the clause has an exemption, which states that if a person believes he has a lawful authority to obstruct a private passage over land or water and does so in good faith, it does not constitute unjust restriction.

Take a look at the illustration below:

Chitra is on a public road where she has the right of way. Rajesh blocks this path despite the fact that he has no legal authority to do so. Rajesh can be deemed to have illegally confined Chitra because she was unable to pass.

 Here to prove the crime of unlawful restraint, the plaintiff must show all of the following:

  • There was a stumbling block;
  • The complainant was unable to go in any direction due to the barrier;
  • That the person/complainant who is proceeding in this manner must have the legal right to do so.

The goal of this section is to ensure that a person’s freedom is protected. When a person has the legal right to go in a certain direction, the law must assure that the person has that right. It is considered wrongful constraint even if there is only a little unlawful obstruction.

The obstacle does not have to be physical, and the presence of the accused is not required for the restraint to be improper under this clause.

The act of wrongful constraint does not necessitate the presence of an assault.

Under this law, even the use of simple words to hinder a person’s passage might be considered an offence.


The perpetrator under Section 339 is punished under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code with either simple imprisonment for a term of up to one month or a fine of up to five hundred rupees, or both.

The offence is Cognizable, Bailable, and Triable by any Magistrate under this clause, and it can also be compounded by the person who is restricted or imprisoned.

The landlord was accused of stopping his tenant, Shoba Rani, from using the bathroom in the case of Shoba Rani vs. The King.

 The landlord had engaged in unjust restraint under Section 339 by preventing the tenant from using anything that he had the right to use.

Furthermore, in the case of Souri Prasad Patnaik vs. State of Orissa, the defendant was a veterinary surgeon who had gone months without receiving paid.

 When his superior officer left the office and returned to his car, the accused protested the non-payment of his wages in front of the jeep.

He had, however, given way to the jeep following his objection.

 The accused was found not guilty of the crime of improper restraint by the Orissa High Court.


Wrongful restraint is essentially a restraint in a line, which means it encompasses all types of restraint that occur along a path, road, or any other movement in a straight line.

 As he is only restricted from moving ahead, the person has the option to move back, left, or right. This is punished because one person has the right to go along a particular road while another has restricted that movement.

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on FacebookTwitter  Youtube and Instagram.

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 at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.

We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.