SECTION 341 IPC - Indian Penal Code - Punishment for wrongful restraint

Description of IPC Section 341

According to section 341 of Indian penal code, 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.

IPC 341 in Simple Words

Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code states that anyone who wrongfully restrains a person can be punished with simple imprisonment for up to one month, or a fine of up to five hundred rupees, or both.

DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 341, IPC.

Section 341, Indian Penal Code (“IPC”) prescribes punishment for the offence of ‘wrongful restraint’. The offence of ‘wrongful restraint’ is defined under Section 339, IPC.

In order to understand Section 341, IPC it is important that we first look at Section 339, IPC.

Section 339: Wrongful restraint

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.

Exception – The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.

Section 341: 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 crux of Section 341, IPC lies in our understanding of what constitutes ‘wrongful restraint’ under Section 339, IPC.

WHAT IS ‘WRONGFUL RESTRAINT’ UNDER SECTION 339, IPC?

The offence of ‘wrongful restraint’ is defined under Section 339, IPC.

Wrongful restraint means obstructing a man from moving from one place to another where he has a right to be and wants to go. Malice is not the necessary element of the offence under this Section. Restraint means an abridgement of the liberty of a person against his will. However, when a person is deprived of his will power to movement by sleep or otherwise he cannot be said to have been subject to any restraint.

What the section contemplates is that there must be an obstruction attributable directly to the person charged. The obstructor must intend, or know, or have reason to believe it to be likely that the means adopted by him would cause obstruction to the complainant.

The essential ingredients that go into the making of an offence under Section 339, IPC are:

1. That the accused must have caused obstruction to a person, voluntarily i.e., -

• With the intention to obstruct that person; or

• With the knowledge that his act is likely to obstruct that person; or

• With the reason to believe that his act is likely to obstruct that person;

2. That the obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed.

Obstruction

Obstruction, for the purpose of Section 339, IPC may be directed into a channel different from the direction in which the victim intends to move. It, though physical, may be caused by use of menaces and threats as well.

Neither physical presence of the obstructor nor an actual assault is necessary to constitute an offence under this Section.

The offence is determined by the effect caused and not by the nature of the act by which it is brought about.

One section of community cannot obstruct the use of public street by another section. E.g., when a Brahman obstructed the complainant, an Izahava convert to Arya Samaj, from using a road and also took him to task, the accused was held liable for wrongful restraint.

Exception: Good faith defence to wrongful restraint

if the obstruction is made in good faith and the accused believed himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, no offence is committed. A person is justified in obstructing another from entering into a private way, over land or water, over which he has a legal right to obstruct.

There can be no conviction unless there is a finding that a right has been interfered with.

So as to understand Section 339, IPC better, let us imagine the following –

- A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.

WHAT IS ‘PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL RESTRAINT’ UNDER SECTION 341?

Section 341, IPC is the penal provision for the offence of ‘wrongful restraint’ that has been defined under Section 339, IPC.

According to Section 341, IPC 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.

WHAT IS THE PROCEDURE FOR TRIAL UNDER SECTION 341, IPC?

In India, the mechanism for criminal justice delivery assumes shape of a criminal trial which is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’).

The trial under Section 341, IPC takes a journey similar to the trials conducted for other criminal offences. Broadly, the procedure for a trial takes the steps - as have been enumerated below, beginning from the filing of an FIR to the final verdict by the court:

1. Investigation - FIR, Arrest, Remand and Bail

i) First Information Report (FIR) - Criminal procedure is set into motion with the filing of an FIR or First Information Report by the victim or an aggrieved person. This marks the beginning of investigation by police into the case.

ii) Arrest - FIR is soon followed by the arrest of the accused person (person who has allegedly committed the offence) by the police and his subsequent production before the Magistrate. Such production must be made within 24 hours of the arrest of the accused person.

iii) Remand/ Custody - At the time of such production if the investigating officer believes that the investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours i.e., the police need more time with the accused for the purpose of interrogation etc., the officer will file an application before the same Magistrate seeking an extension in custody of the accused. Now, depending on the discretion of the Magistrate, such detention may be authorised in police custody (lock-up) or in judicial custody (jail).

However, it is to be noted that a Magistrate cannot authorise detention of an accused in police custody for a period exceeding the initial 15 days (from the date of the production of the accused before the Magistrate).

On the other hand, a Magistrate under Section 167 (2)(a), CrPC may authorize the detention of the accused in judicial custody beyond the period of initial fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so. However, no magistrate shall authorize custody for more than -

- Ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term not less than ten years;

- Sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence.

iv) Bail - If upon the expiry of 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, the police is unable to complete the investigation and file a chargesheet (as corresponds to the offence) with the Magistrate, the accused is entitled to default bail i.e., such bail is compulsorily granted to the accused provided he applies for and furnishes bail.

However, during the 60- or 90-day period, as the case may be, while the accused is still under custody of the police or otherwise, he may keep pushing for the grant of regular bail under Section 437 or 439, CrPC by the Magistrate or the High Court/Court of Sessions, respectively.

2. Filing of Final Report by the Police

The police after completing the investigation have to file a final report under Section 173, CrPC. This marks the conclusion of the investigation which is aimed at collecting evidence surrounding the commission of the offence.

The final report may take one of the following forms:

i) Closure Report

ii) Charge Sheet

Closure Report

If the evidence collected against the accused is found to be deficit i.e., there is not enough evidence to support prosecution of the accused before a Court of law justifying his further detention in the custody, then the police will file a closure report under Section 169, CrPC and release the accused on his executing a bond/ signing an undertaking for his appearance, if and when so required, before a Magistrate.

In other words, a closure report is filed when the police have little or no evidence in support of the fact that the offence has been committed by the concerned accused.

The police officer is bound to notify the informant (who gets an FIR lodged) the fact that a final report relating to his case has been submitted to the Magistrate.

Upon presentation of the closure report to the Magistrate, he is open to proceed with any of the following four options:

1) He may accept the closure report and refuse to take cognizance of the offence. Result, the case doesn’t proceed further.

2) He may reject the closure report and instead take cognizance of the offence under Section 190, CrPC.

Result, the case proceeds to the next stage.

3) Without rejecting the closure report he may direct the investigating agency to conduct further investigation into the matter, if he thinks that there is some gap that needs filling-up.

4) If an informant challenges such closure report by filing a protest petition, the Magistrate shall proceed to adjudicate upon the same following which he may take or refuse to take cognizance of the offence.

If the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence under Section 190, CrPC he would issue summons to the accused, under Section 204, CrPC thereby directing his appearance before himself.

Charge Sheet

If the evidence collected against the accused is found to be sufficient i.e., there is enough evidence to support prosecution of the accused before a Court of law and that justifies his continued detention in the custody, then the police will file a charge sheet under Section 173, CrPC and will forward the accused under custody to the Magistrate under Section 170, CrPC.

A charge sheet is a formal police record which is drawn out in a format prescribed by the State, stipulating the various particulars relating to the case, like names of the parties involved; nature of the accusations levelled; list of witnesses, statements of witnesses recorded during their examination under Section 161, CrPC; whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; whether the accused has been arrested and
whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170, CrPC or whether he has been released on his bond; list of objects seized and other documentary evidences that the prosecution seeks to rely on.

Once the Magistrate takes cognizance on the charge sheet, he shall issue summons or warrant (depending on the nature of the offence committed) to the accused thereby securing his attendance before himself on a given date.

The Magistrate on the date fixed will conduct a hearing on charges and may consequently either discharge the accused and close the case or he may frame the charges against the accused and post the case for trial.