A was going in a way by driving his car, in which he had a right to go. Some workers of a political party restrained A from proceeding in that way by car as the political party has declared a ‘bandh’ in the town. However, A was…

Question: A was going in a way by driving his car, in which he had a right to go. Some workers of a political party restrained A from proceeding in that way by car as the political party has declared a ‘bandh’ in the town. However, A was allowed to go on foot by workers of concerned political parties. Are the workers of political parties guilty of wrongful restraint? Give reasons and also refer to the case law, if any, on the point.

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A was going in a way by driving his car, in which he had a right to go. Some workers of a political party restrained A from proceeding in that way by car as the political party has declared a ‘bandh’ in the town. However, A was…]

Answer

Section 339 defines Wrongful restraint as,

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.

Illustration

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.

In wrongful restraint, the physical presence of the accused is not always necessary. The essential ingredients of ‘wrongful restraint’ are:

1. voluntary obstruction of a person, and
2. the obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed.

As held in the case of Durgapada v. Nalin Ghosh AIR 1935 Cal 252, obstruction to vehicle alone does not constitute ‘wrongful restraint’ as defined in Section 339 as obstruction of a person only comes within its purview.

Also, the only obstruction to plying or parking a vehicle in a particular place does not amount to wrongful restraint as there is no obstruction to the human body.

However, an obstruction caused to a vehicle carrying passengers amounts to wrongful restraint of the passengers. The fact that the passengers are free to get down and proceed to the desired direction does not take the obstruction to the passengers outside the ambit of wrongful restraint.

In the present case, when A was restraint from proceeding in that way by car as the political party has declared a ‘bandh’ in the town. However, he was allowed to go on foot by workers of concerned political parties.

So, the only obstruction of the vehicle was done by the political party and not of any person i.e. A who was allowed to go on foot. Therefore, the workers of a political party are not liable to caused wrongful restraint to A but his car.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions

---

1. Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary and Entrance Exams
2. Legal Bites Academy – Ultimate Test Prep Destination