Wrongful confinement for ten or more days
Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with wrongful confinement for ten or more days. Whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days, or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 confines any person for ten days, or more, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 344, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 127 Wrongful confinement Close, with changes 81%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Wrongful confinement; cited in original sexual harassment case
-
Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Sat Kamal Pathak
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint for perjury and false prosecution is filed after a malicious FIR has been quashed by the High Court, the limitation period for such complaint should be computed from the date of quashing of the FIR, not from the date of its registration. The cause of action arises when the false allegations are judicially determined to be baseless. Additionally, when multiple offences are charged together, the limitation period is determined with reference to the offence punishable with the most severe punishment, and the trial court must consider the substantive merits of the complaint before dismissing it on limitation grounds alone.
On this section: Wrongful confinement for three years. Applied to the petitioner's arrest and detention from 03.07.2005 to 16.07.2005.
-
Swikar Luthra @ Sonu vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving serious criminal allegations and where the accused has a history of being a Proclaimed Offender with multiple prior criminal cases registered against him, bail should be denied as the gravity of allegations and the accused's criminal antecedents demonstrate a risk to the administration of justice and the likelihood of non-appearance.
On this section: Offence of wrongful confinement; cited as one of the charges against the petitioner
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.
-
… We were informed at the hearing that two further sets of proceedings arising out of the same facts are now pending against the appellants. One is two civil suits for damages for wrongful confinement. The order is two criminal prosecutions under section 344, Indian Penal Code, for wrongful confinement, one against each Sub-Inspector. It was said that the simultaneous prosecution of these matters will embarrass the accused. But after the hearing of the appeal we received information that the two criminal prosecutions have been closed with liberty to file fresh …
Questions about Section 344
What have the courts held on Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code?
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police (07 May 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Wrongful confinement; cited in original sexual harassment case. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 1 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2019 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 344 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 344, section 344 IPC, section 344 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 344 in bns. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police (07 May 2019).
What should I read with Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 127 (Wrongful confinement), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 344 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 344, 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.