Friday, 3 June 2022

Wrongful Restraint

 Wrongful Restraint

The act of restraining an individual’s way or confining him in a particular room

or space is considered as a wrong act because every person has the right to

freedom of movement and right to personal liberty under Article 19 and 21

imbibed in the Constitution of India. So, to safeguard the individual’s rights ant

liberty and punish the person who violates another person’s rights, penal

sanctions are laid down by the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

As per the Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Wronful Restraint is

defined as, ‘Whoever voluntary 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 to wrongfully restrain that person.’ But this is not a absolute

case and that is why exception is also provided under this that is if a person

believes that he or she is acting in good faith or have the certain lawful authority

by which the obstruction takes place, then that obstruction would not amount to

wrongful restraint and the person who is doing it will not be liable under law. In

this regard, an example can be presented here for better understanding of the

concept that if a person is going to his home after committing theft and the

police come and obstruct his way, then that person cannot argue in the court of

law that he was wronfully restrained to go to his home. The police has a valid

reason for doing so and cannot be held liable.

The main ingredient which should be present to constitute act or restraint as a

wrongful restraint is that there must be an obstruction which stopped the person

to proceed in that direction in which he has a right to proceed. The main thing

which has to be kept in mind is that the person can only move where he has a

right to proceed. He cannot argue and bring a suit against the his neighbour who

stopped him to enter his house. Also, it cannot be argued by the defendant that

another way was there. The offence of wrongful restraint applies when a way is

blocked of an individual. It doesn’t matter that the plaintiff had an option to

reach his house or the whatever his destination is by another road which was not

very far from the place he was standing. It is absurd.

The main objective behind this is that in any way the freedom of the individual

is protected. It should not be violated and if by any chance it is violated then

strict actions are taken to ensure the rights. Sometimes, there are situations

where the defendant argues that the plaintiff’s way was not actually obstructed.

He only felt like his way was blocked to which the defendant does not have any

responsibility or liable for any kind of punishment. In that case, the principle of

reasonable apprehension will take place. If the plaintiff in any way felt that it is

impossible or dangerous or difficult to proceed in that way, the defendant will

still be liable. For example: the plaintiff brings a suit where he was denied to

take a road which goes to his house by the defendant who was continuously

burning fire crackers on the way. The defendant cannot argue that the plaintiff

could have walked on side of the road where he was not there. He will be liable

because for any reasonable person, the burning of fire crackers means that he

cannot proceed in that direction as it is dangerous and can hurt him on that way.

Therefore, by keeping all these things in mind our country provides for the

punishment which is a simple imprisonment which may extend to one month or

with fine which can also be extended to five hundred rupees or with both.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Concept of constitutionalism

  Concept of constitutionalism Who Started Constitutionalism? John Locke - The English Bill of Rights is a foundational constitutional docum...