Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 126
Wrongful restraint
(1) 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. 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.
(2) 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 thousand rupees, or with both.
Why this exists
This provision continues a long-standing principle from the earlier Indian Penal Code (Section 341), aimed at protecting a person's basic freedom of movement. It criminalizes minor but real interferences with someone's right to move freely, while carving out an exception for genuine, good-faith disputes over private paths (like boundary or right-of-way disagreements), so that honest property-related conduct is not automatically criminalised.
How courts read it
Indian courts, interpreting the identical language under the old IPC Section 341, have consistently held that 'voluntary obstruction' requires an intentional act, not accidental blocking, and that the restraint must be complete enough to stop the person from proceeding at all in the direction they wished to go (partial hindrance or a mere alternative route being available may not suffice for the more serious offence of wrongful confinement, but can still count as wrongful restraint). Courts have also emphasized that the good-faith exception protects genuine, honest claims to a right of way, even if that claim later turns out to be legally incorrect, so long as it was not a pretence.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Any physical blocking of a path is automatically a crime.
Fact: The law only punishes deliberate blocking of someone's legal right to proceed; genuine, honest disputes over private paths are excused under the exception. - Myth: Wrongful restraint means locking someone up or trapping them completely.
Fact: Wrongful restraint is about stopping someone from moving in a particular direction they have a right to go; fully confining someone in an enclosed space is a separate, more serious offence (wrongful confinement).