Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with wrongful restraint—stopping a person from going where they have a right to go. It is one of the most commonly invoked "everyday dispute" offences in Indian criminal law, and its punishment clause, Section 126(2) BNS, is the direct successor of the familiar Section 341 IPC. The section defines the offence in sub-section (1) and punishes it in sub-section (2).
- What Section 126 BNS provides
- Section 126(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. There is one exception: obstructing a private way over land or water which the person, in good faith, believes he has a lawful right to obstruct is not an offence.
- Section 126(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. This is the old Section 341 IPC, folded in as a sub-section.
What counts as wrongful restraint
The essence of the offence is blocking a person's path, not seizing the person. Typical examples: standing in front of someone to stop them leaving a room, blocking a neighbour's access to a shared passage, parking a vehicle so another vehicle cannot move out, or shutting a gate on someone's established route. Three things matter:
- The obstruction must be voluntary—accidental blocking is not an offence;
- The person obstructed must have a right to proceed that way—stopping a trespasser from entering private property is not wrongful restraint; and
- A genuine, good-faith belief in a lawful right to obstruct a private way is a complete defence under the exception.
Wrongful restraint is the lighter of the two "restricting movement" offences: it blocks movement in a particular direction, while the graver offence of wrongful confinement, dealt with separately in the code, prevents a person from moving beyond a circumscribed area altogether.
Procedure and classification
Under the First Schedule, the offence under Section 126(2) is cognizable and bailable, and is triable by any Magistrate. It sits at the pettiest end of the offences against the human body, and wrongful restraint has traditionally been compoundable at the instance of the person restrained, which means most genuine neighbourhood disputes under this section can be lawfully settled.
What changed from the IPC
Per the official comparison, Section 341 IPC is carried into the BNS as sub-section (2) of Section 126, without its own heading, and the substance of the offence is unchanged. The one real change is the money: the maximum fine rises from five hundred rupees to five thousand rupees, updating an amount that had stood since 1860. The case law on what amounts to obstruction and on the good-faith exception continues to apply.
Being blocked from your own property or route, or accused over a heated neighbourhood dispute? These small-sounding cases often sit on top of a larger civil dispute, and handling both together matters. Talk to a lawyer in your city or browse advocates in the Free Law directory.