Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVI: Of Offences Affecting the Human Body · Of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement
Section 341: Punishment for wrongful restraint
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
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.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 341
-
Tuhin Kumar Biswas @ Bumba v. The State of West Bengal
The Revision Petition filed by the Appellant-accused against the order dismissing the discharge application filed by the Appellant in FIR No.50/2020 dated 19.03.2020 lodged with police station Bidhannagar North, was…
-
Devendra Kumar v. The State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.
High Court affirmed the order passed by the CMM directing registration of the FIR against the petitioner for offences punishable u/ss.186 and 341, Penal Code, 1860. Whether the CMM erred in involving the police in a…
-
Ashok Dhankad v. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Issue arose as regards to the sustainability of the order passed by the High Court enlarging the accused on regular bail u/s.483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
-
Gurdeep Singh v. The State of Punjab
Issue arose whether the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences u/ss.307, 353, 332, 225, 186, and 120B IPC and s.25 of the Arms Act, 1959 by the courts below was legally sustainable.
-
Jamnalal v. State of Rajasthan and Another
In the instant appeal, the father of the prosecutrix challenges the order of the High Court. By the said order, the sentence imposed on respondent no.2 herein was suspended till the final disposal of the appeal. Whether…
-
Manchu Mohan Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another
Issue arose as to whether the criminal proceedings against the appellants for conducting rally and dharna against the State Government, allegedly causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic, inconvenience, annoyance…
-
Victim ‘X’ v. State of Bihar and Anr.
Allegations of torture and sexual exploitation against the respondent no.2-accused. She was granted bail by the High Court. Whether the grant of bail to the respondent no.2-accused has resulted into travesty of justice.
-
Amlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Whether in the attending facts and circumstances, the High Court could have accepted a submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, to conduct narco-analysis test of all the accused persons (including the appellant)…
-
Dhanya M v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Whether the preventive detention of the detenu is in accordance with law.
-
Mohammed Asarudeen v. Union of India & Ors.
Whether the Special Court while dealing with an application under sub-section 2 of s.44 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 made in respect of a large number of witnesses, recorded the satifaction which is…
-
Harjinder Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr.
Whether the evidence led, in the instant case, justified the Trial Court’s exercise of power u/s.319 CrPC to summon respondent no. 2, and whether the High Court was right in setting that order aside at the threshold.
-
Pramila Devi & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
The Additional Judicial Commissioner took cognizance against one V and appellants on 13.06.2019 in SC/ST Case No.08/2017. Whether the Additional Judicial Commissioner while taking cognizance has to record detailed…
-
Sachin v. State of Maharashtra
Issue arose whether, the High Court could enhance the sentence under its revisional powers in a convict’s appeal against conviction.
-
The State of Jharkhand & Others v. Vikash Tiwary @ Bikash Tiwary @ Bikash Nath
Whether the High Court was correct in quashing the order/ memo dated 17.05.2023 issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Ranchi, Jharkhand, making intra-State transfer of the respondent herein from Lok Nayak Jai…
-
Shambhu Debnath v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to accused persons despite specific allegations of heinous crime u/s.302 of Penal Code, 1860 and chargesheet on record that established the allegations made…
-
Prem Prakash v. Union of India Through
When a person is in judicial custody/custody in another case investigated by the same Investigating Agency, whether the statements recorded (in the present case, the statements dated 03.08.2023, 04.08.2023, 11.08.2023)…
-
Bidyut Sarkar & Anr. v. Kanchilal Pal (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.
Issue arose as regards admissibility of the insufficiently stamped agreement to sell.
-
Ram Prakash Chadha v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
In the chargesheet, appellant was accused for commission of offences u/ss. 302, 343, 217, 218, 330, 120B and 34, IPC. An application for discharge u/s. 227 of Cr.PC was rejected by the Trial Court. Whether the findings…
-
Selvamani v. The State Rep. By The Inspector of Police
Appellant was one of the five accused persons who were found guilty of committing the offence of gang rape and was convicted under Section 376(g) and 506(1) of Penal Code, 1860 and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of…
-
Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Whether there could be any bar on the Trial Court for proceeding u/s. 82 Cr.P.C., merely because an anticipatory application for bail has been filed or because such an application was adjourned without passing any…
-
Parshuram v. State of M.P.
Whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable u/s. 302/149, s.326/149, s.324/149, s.323/149, s.147 and s.148 IPC.
- The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Bhupendra Yadav
-
State of Haryana v. Dharamraj
In instant appeal, the State seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the sole respondent by the Single Judge of the High Court.
- Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri
-
Nagaraj Reddy v. State of Tamil Nadu
Concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused No.1 for offences punishable u/ss.302, 341 IPC primarily on the basis of evidence of PW-1, an interested witness, if justified. Evidence – Interested witness – Previous…
- Ex-Const/Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of
- P. Ponnusamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu
- The State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai @ Pandav Rai
- State Through the Inspector of Police v. Laly @ Manikandan & Another Etc
- N. S. Madhanagopal & Anr. v. K. Lalitha
- Sadhna Chaudhary v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.
- Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Veerendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Chetan Jeff
- Imran v. Mr. Mohammed Bhava & Anr
- Krishnamurthy @ Gunodu and Others v. State of Karnataka
- Sunil Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Anr.
- Bhoopendra Singh v. The State of Rajasthan
- Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Another v. Anil Kanwariya
- Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur v. Akashdeep Morya & Anr.
- Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar
- Manjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.
- Kumer Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr
- Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Makwana (Koli) & Anr.
- The State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Love Kush Meena
- The State of Kerala v. Mahesh
- Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana & Anr. Etc.
- Girraj v. Kiranpal and Anr Etc
- Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb
- Murali v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
- Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia v. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu @ Dhiraj Sahu & Anr.
- Bikramjit Singh v. The State of Punjab
- Subed Ali and Others v. The State of Assam
- Maheshwar Tigga v. The State of Jharkhand
- Rana Nahid @ Reshma @ Sana & Anr. v. Sahidul Haq Chisti
- Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr.
- Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- G H Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana & Ors.
- Tarun Jit Tejpal v. The State of Goa & Anr.
- R. Jayapal v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.
- Kumar Ghimirey v. The State of Sikkim
- Mani v. State of Kerala and Others
- Sugreev Kumar v. State of Punjab & Ors.
- Balvir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- State of Rajasthan v. Leela Ram @ Leela Dhar
- Shanthamalleshappa v. State of Karnataka
- Palani v. State of Tamil Nadu
- State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Abhijit Singh Pawar
- Munshiram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. Etc.
- Bannareddy & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
- Prem Giri v. State of Rajasthan
- State (Nct of Delhi) v. Brijesh Singh @ Arun Kumar and Anr.
- Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja
- Vaneet Mahajan v. State of Punjab & Ors.
- Kattukulangara Madhavan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. v. Majeed & Ors.
- Punjab State Warehousing Corp. v. Bhushan Chander & Anr.
- M/S. v. L. S. Finance Ltd. v. S. P. Gupta and Anr.
- Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors.
- Ranjit Sarkar v. State of Tripura
- Bablu Kumarand Ors. v. State of Bihair and Anr.
- Chandra Babu @ Moses v. State Through Inspector of Police & Ors.
- Jagtar Singh v. State of Haryana
- Edward v. Inspector of Police, Aandimadam Police Station
- Kanaklata v. State of (Nct) of Delhi & Ors.
- Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation