False imprisonment is a common law wrong and also a tort which is dealt with in the form of wrongful confinement defined under the Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. To define what the false imprisonment literally means, it is restraining the person in a confined area without any justification or the person’s consent. It may be of private detention or governmental detention. It is not essentially required that the person is actually put behind the bars or confined in any area where there is not a possibilty to escape but if the person who is boounded in an area feels that he is confined and not any way to free that space, then it will be said as false imprisonment. The only requirement in this that a reasonable person should feel that he is confined. For example, if a person’s is confined in a particular room by the government authorities without any justification to the person confined or his or her family members, not even the lawyer then the it will be said as false imprisonment. It doesn’t matter that it is done by the State because what really matters is the reason which has not been told to any person who is in some or the other manner conneceted to the plaintiff. In that case, the family members and the lawyer can bring a suit against the State in the court and can also file a writ of ‘Habeas Corpus’ that literally means ‘Now you may have the body’. Also, it should be added that the degree of detention or the imprisonment of the plaintiff does not matter but it is the absence of lawful authority to justify the unlawful confinement which is of relevance. Therefore, false imprisonment is actually an intentional tort like any of those such as assault, battery, unlawful harassment and invasion of privacy. In other words, it can also be said as the trespass to the person or any individual.
With accusation, there are some defence which the defendant can take in the case of consent of the plaintiff or voluntary assumption of the risk, probable cause and contributory negligence. The defendant can argue in the court of law that the plaintiff was confined because he consented to that act. He had full knowledge of the incident which took place and he voluntary took that. In these circumstances, the defendant will get complete defence and will not be liable for anything but in the case of contributory negligence, the complete defence will not be granted. The reason behind it is the plaintiff may have contributed to the act which happened with him or her but he was not wholly wrong. The defendant was liable and if he would have not initiated it in the first place, then this whole incident would have not taken place. The only remedy in this case which will be provided to the defendant will be that his some part of damages will be mitigated and then he will only have to pay some amount. Also, reasonable care and acting in good faith doesn’t matter in this tort and the person will still be sued for that.
Therefore, the remedies which are available to the plaintiff in this case is damages, writ of habeas corpus and self help. Apart from that, it depends on the circumstances.