Punishment for wrongful restraint
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with 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. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
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.
Section 341, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 126 Wrongful restraint Close, with changes 82%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 7
- Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act s. 152 Wrongful restraint of officers etc
- Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act s. 438 Wrongful restraint of Commissioner and his delegates
- Karnataka Municipalities Act s. 438 Wrongful restraint of Commissioner and his delegates
- Kerala Muncipality Act s. 516 Wrongful restraint of Secretary and his delegates
- Kerala Panchayat Raj Act s. 260 Wrongful restraint of Secretary or his delegate
- Puducherry Municipalities Act s. 6
- Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act s. 248 Wrongful restraint of Executive Authority or Commissioner or 1[Secretary] or his delegates
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Keki Hormusji Gharda vs Mehervan Rustom Irani
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In the absence of express statutory provision creating vicarious criminal liability, company directors and officers cannot be held criminally liable for actions of company employees or contractors merely by virtue of their positions in the company. Criminal liability requires direct overt acts, physical presence, or involvement by the accused. Allegations of instigating or managing affairs of a company do not, by themselves, constitute criminal wrongful restraint when the accused were not physically present at the site and no direct physical obstruction was caused by them. The Magistrate must carefully apply his mind to the facts and law before issuing summons, and must determine whether the allegations, even if taken to be correct, disclose a prima facie offence.
On this section: 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.' Court held that the word 'voluntary' is significant and connotes direct obstruction.
-
W. Kalyani vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, only a man can be prosecuted for the offence of adultery. A woman cannot be prosecuted for adultery as the section expressly provides that the wife shall not be punishable even as an abettor. The mere fact that the appellant is a woman makes her completely immune to the charge of adultery. Additionally, on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint, the charge of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC cannot be made out against the appellant. Therefore, criminal proceedings against a woman for adultery and wrongful restraint, when the allegations do not substantiate the charges, should be quashed.
On this section: The Court examined Section 341 which deals with wrongful restraint. On the basis of the allegations made in the complaint, the Court found that the charge of wrongful restraint could not be made out against the appellant. The Court held that all allegations in the complaint taken on their face value do not make out any case against the accused under this section.
-
W. Kalyani vs State Tr. Insp. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Under the current law as embodied in Section 497 IPC, only a man can be prosecuted for the offense of adultery. A woman cannot be prosecuted for adultery because the statute expressly uses masculine pronouns and gender-specific language ('he,' 'man') and explicitly provides that 'the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.' Therefore, a woman accused of adultery has absolute immunity from prosecution under this provision. Additionally, mere allegations of a woman accompanying and moving freely with another woman's husband, without more, do not constitute the offense of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC, and such vague allegations without factual substance do not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings.
On this section: Section 341 deals with wrongful restraint. The Court examined whether the allegations of the appellant accompanying the complainant's husband to Tirupati and moving freely with him constituted wrongful restraint. The Court found that the allegations did not make out any case of wrongful restraint against the appellant.
-
Commissioner of Police vs Shiv Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Acquittal or discharge in criminal proceedings does not per se entitle a candidate to consideration for public service appointment, particularly in police recruitment. The Screening Committee has discretion to assess suitability based on the nature of charges, circumstances of the case, and whether acquittal resulted from serious flaws in prosecution or hostile witnesses. Judicial review of such decisions is limited to grounds of mala fides, illegality, or mindlessness; courts cannot conduct intensive factual scrutiny or second-guess the suitability determination made by the designated public employer authority.
On this section: Wrongful restraint; charged against Shiv Singh and Prem Singh Choudhary
-
Selvamani vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a victim of gang rape and her family members retract their testimony during cross-examination due to long trial delays and possible witness intimidation, their evidence cannot be rejected in toto. Instead, the court must carefully scrutinize the evidence and accept those parts which are dependable and consistent with corroborating evidence such as the FIR, medical examination findings, and statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC. If such corroborating evidence establishes that forcible sexual intercourse occurred, the conviction can be sustained despite the victim's retraction, provided the medical evidence clearly shows injuries consistent with gang rape.
On this section: Defines wrongful restraint. Mentioned in the FIR as one of the offences but not the primary focus of the conviction.
-
Tarun Jit Tejpal vs The State of Goa Home Department Home Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Sections 227-228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out whether the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The court has the power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. The test to be applied is whether there is ground for presuming that the offence has been committed, not whether ground for conviction has been made out. Even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused. The court cannot conduct a mini-trial or weigh the evidence as if it was conducting a trial. The submissions made by the accused on merits and probable defence are not required to be considered at this stage. The decision in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab regarding vitiation of trial when complainant and investigating officer are the same applies prospectively only, as held in Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and does not apply to cases where criminal prosecution was initiated prior to the Mohan Lal decision.
On this section: Wrongful restraint - one of the offences charged against the appellant
-
Bannareddy vs The State of Karnataka Navalgund Police Station Police Sub Inspector
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court should not interfere with a well-reasoned order of acquittal passed by the trial court unless strong and compelling reasons exist in the evidence itself which can dislodge the findings. When two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused, as the very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through consistent, reliable, and corroborated evidence; material contradictions in witness statements, hostile witnesses, suspicious recovery procedures, and dubious victim conduct collectively render the prosecution case insufficient to sustain conviction.
On this section: Wrongful restraint - accused charged with restraining victims; conviction reversed due to contradictory evidence
-
Gautam Kumar Devjibhai vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Evidence recorded in one criminal trial against different accused persons cannot be transferred to another trial and read against an accused who was not present during the original trial unless the transfer is effected in compliance with Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, with proper court order explicitly approving such transfer, and without violating the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses. An accused person's mere absconding does not automatically waive his right to cross-examination; such waiver must be established through proper legal procedure. Appellate courts cannot ignore trial courts' explicit rejection of applications for evidence transfer and must independently examine whether transferred evidence was validly admitted before relying upon it for conviction. An acquittal can be reversed only if there exists independent evidence, beyond transferred evidence whose admissibility is disputed, that establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, wrongful confinement for extortion - charges against Gautam Ramanuj (A2) and Vijay Ranglal Chorasiya (A5) read with Section 34 (common intention)
-
In Re: vs Indian Woman Says Gang-raped on Orders
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The State has a constitutional duty under Article 21 of the Constitution to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens, including the freedom of choice in marriage and protection from sexual violence. When the State fails to prevent grave violations of these fundamental rights such as gang rape, the State is duty bound to provide substantial monetary compensation to the victim for rehabilitation and must implement systemic reforms including police vigilance, mandatory victim protection procedures under the Criminal Procedure Code, and long-term victim rehabilitation. Panchayats and village councils have no legal authority to order, authorize, or participate in violence or sexual assault, and such acts constitute unlawful assemblies and barbaric crimes deserving harsh punishment. The investigating agency must comply with mandatory procedural requirements including recording rape FIRs and victim statements exclusively by women police officers, invoking all applicable criminal sections, obtaining and certifying all evidence properly, and investigating larger conspiracies if any.
On this section: Applicable to case facts; Court noted this was one of the sections invoked in FIR
-
C. Muniappan vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is multi-faceted: (1) Charges under Section 188 IPC cannot be framed without written complaint by competent public servant as mandated by Section 195 CrPC, and absence of such complaint renders those charges void ab initio. However, such procedural defect does not vitiate the entire prosecution case or other charges if sufficient evidence exists for those charges. (2) Test identification parade is primarily an investigative tool and corroborative evidence, not substantive evidence. Actual evidence is the court testimony of witnesses. Identification parade is reliable when conducted properly without prior exposure of accused to witnesses, and when witnesses have direct observation opportunity. (3) Evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in toto; relevant parts consistent with prosecution or defence case can be relied upon after close scrutiny. (4) Defective investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal; court must examine evidence independently of investigation lapses to determine reliability. (5) Death sentence is warranted in rarest of rare cases involving planned, brutal crimes with exceptional depravity targeting helpless victims, where collective conscience is shocked, and no mitigating circumstances exist. Life imprisonment is the rule; death penalty is exception. (6) Two separate FIRs arising from same incident can be clubbed into one charge sheet if they are part of continuous sequence of events.
On this section: Wrongful restraint - applied for preventing free movement during agitation
-
Subrata Das vs State of Jharkhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked to quash proceedings only in cases where: (a) there is a legal impediment to continuance of proceedings such as absence of required sanction; (b) averments made in the complaint or FIR, even if accepted at face value, do not constitute an offence; or (c) there is no legal evidence to support the charge. The power must be exercised sparingly. When two courts below have concurrently found that a prima facie case exists based on available material and witness depositions, the High Court should not interfere unless one of the above conditions is satisfied. Additionally, when a matter is remanded for further enquiry, the magistrate has discretion in determining the nature of enquiry to be conducted, and fresh examination of witnesses, while not necessarily required, does not vitiate the proceedings if the magistrate is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out.
On this section: Offence of punishment for wrongful restraint; applied in context of allegations against accused
-
State of Kerala vs Anilachandran @ Madhu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where the First Information Report exhibits signs of tampering (deletion of signatures), is sent with unexplained delay to the Magistrate in violation of Section 157 of CrPC (which mandates sending 'forthwith'), and corroborated by inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony, the prosecution fails to meet its burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The inability of the accused to prove an alibi does not relieve the prosecution of its fundamental duty to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt through reliable and credible evidence. The genesis of the criminal incident must be established for conviction to be safe, even if the accused's participation in the actual assault is accepted.
On this section: Punishment for wrongful restraint - Applied to the holding and restraint of the deceased by A2 and A3
-
Ramesh Kumar vs State of M. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ingredients of murder under Section 302 IPC are not established merely by proof of assault with non-lethal weapons on non-vital parts of the body causing contusions and fractures. Criminal intention to cause death or knowledge that bodily injury is likely to cause death must be inferred from the nature of weapon used, the part of body chosen for assault, and attending circumstances. When the weapon is not inherently lethal, vital organs are not targeted, and the victim could have been saved by prompt medical aid, the offense constitutes grievous hurt under Section 326 IPC rather than murder under Section 302 IPC.
On this section: Wrongful restraint - initially charged but later modified to Section 342
-
Amarjeet Singh Kapoor vs The State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases where an accused is willing to cooperate with investigation, custodial interrogation is not automatically required merely because the offences are serious. Courts must assess whether custodial interrogation is genuinely necessary for the investigation or whether the investigative objectives can be achieved through the accused's voluntary cooperation, conditional bail, and periodic visits to the Police Station. Anticipatory bail can be granted with conditions ensuring cooperation and availability, balancing the investigative powers of the State with the personal liberty of the accused during the investigation phase.
On this section: Wrongful restraint - offence for which petitioner was accused
-
Pritam Singh vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Preventive detention, being an exceptional measure, must be exercised with utmost care and only in compelling circumstances. When grounds of detention have been previously quashed by courts, they cannot be used again in subsequent detention orders. Additionally, there must exist a live and proximate link between the alleged prejudicial activities and the detention order. Stale criminal incidents from several years prior, without any fresh or recent criminal activity, cannot justify preventive detention. Courts have the power to quash patently illegal detention orders even at the pre-execution stage.
On this section: Various sections under which FIRs were registered against the petitioner, including criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, attempt to murder, criminal intimidation, rioting, and criminal conspiracy
-
Suchet Singh vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An FIR cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. merely because it follows a civil or criminal proceeding. Each case must be evaluated on its specific facts and circumstances. The determination of whether an FIR is a counterblast often involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and such determination should be left to the wisdom of the trial court. When allegations in an FIR prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the High Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations, and criminal proceedings cannot be terminated at the initial stage by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Offence of wrongful restraint; cited as one of the offences in the impugned FIR
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The sole accused in S.C.No.1691 of 2010 on the files of the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Kollam, is the appellant in the appeal. He stands convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 333, 353 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The appellant, a person with a physical disability requiring the use of crutches, lived with his parents. On 26.04.2008 at 11.30 a.m., two linemen and an overseer of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) who were deputed for disconnecting the power supply of defaulters …
-
… Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in S.C.No.188/2015, whereby the trial court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under sections 302, 341 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860(for short 'IPC'). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:- The name of the deceased is Ganeshappa @ Ganesh Rao. The complainant, U. Basavarajappa i.e., PW-1 is an eye witness to the incident. He stated that on 08.07.2015 at 7:30 a.m., when he was on morning walk …
Questions about Section 341
What have the courts held on Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code?
Keki Hormusji Gharda vs Mehervan Rustom Irani (13 May 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: 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.' Court held that the word 'voluntary' is significant and connotes direct obstruction. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 14 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 341, section 341 IPC, section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 341 in bns and ipc 341 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Keki Hormusji Gharda vs Mehervan Rustom Irani (13 May 2009).
What should I read with Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
7 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 126 (Wrongful restraint), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 341, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.