Indian Penal Code, 1860 · Chapter XVI: Of Offences Affecting the Human Body · Of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement
Section 342: Punishment for wrongful confinement
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024.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 confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand 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 342
-
Zainul v. The State of Bihar
The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 124 of 1989 holding the appellants herein…
-
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…
-
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)…
-
Raju @ Umakant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 366, 376(2)(g) and 342, Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is justified.
-
N. Eswaranathan v. State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Misconduct committed by Advocates. The Advocates offered an absolute and unconditional apology. Whether the advocates are worthy of pardon.
-
G.V. Adhimoolam & Ors. v. The Inspector of Police & Anr.
Matter pertains to the sustainability of the order passed by the High Court rejecting the petition of the appellants seeking quashing of complaint against them.
-
X v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Issue arose as regards accused being enlarged on bail in rape case by the High Court, when the victim and the mother who was the eye-witness to the incident were yet to be examined.
-
Ramji Lal Bairwa & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Issue arose as regards whether a third party to a criminal proceeding got locus standi to challenge the order quashing the FIR lodged against the teacher by the father of the minor victim under the Penal Code, POCSO Act…
-
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
Accused-petitioner was granted absolute interim protection of anticipatory bail by Supreme Court, until modified or altered upon final disposal of the present SLP which was pending consideration before this Court.…
-
Gaurav Maini v. The State of Haryana
Courts below, if justified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable u/ss. 364A, 392 and 120B IPC.
-
Ajwar v. Waseem and Another
High Court, if justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s. 439(1) Cr.P.C for granting regular bail in favour of the accused persons.
-
Child in Conflict With Law Through His Mother v. The State of Karnataka and Another
(i) Whether the period provided for completion of preliminary assessment u/s. 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is mandatory or directory; (ii) Whether the words ‘Children’s…
-
Mukhtar Zaidi v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Whether CJM as also the High Court fell in error in taking cognizance u/s. 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the CJM had relied upon not only the Protest Petition which was supported by affidavit of the complainant but also…
-
Thirumoorthy v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police
Appellant-accused, a Child in Conflict with Law on the date of the incident was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 342, 302, 201 r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act. Trial, conviction and sentence of the appellant, if was…
-
M. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
Prosecution, if succeeded in establishing that there was mens rea on the part of the appellant to commit the offence rather to push the victim to commit suicide and to attract the offence u/s. 306, IPC.
-
Manak Chand @ Mani v. The State of Haryana
Whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence of rape u/s. 376 IPC.
-
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.
- State of Rajasthan v. Asharam @ Ashumal
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh Etc.
- Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. The State of
- Kaushal Kishor v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
- Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Manoj Pratap Singh v. The State of Rajasthan
- Devadassan v. The Second Class Executive Magistrate, Ramanathapuram & Ors.
- Jayaben v. Tejas Kanubhai Zala & Anr
- K.S. Ranganatha v. Vittal Shetty
- Attorney General for India v. Satish and Another
- State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Narayan @ Narayan Sai @ Mota Bhagwan Asaram @ Asumal Harpalani
- Ramgopal & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Girraj v. Kiranpal and Anr Etc
- Devilal and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Pravat Chandra Mohanty v. The State of Odisha & Anr.
- Miss ‘A v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
- D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain
- Rana Nahid @ Reshma @ Sana & Anr. v. Sahidul Haq Chisti
- Tarun Jit Tejpal v. The State of Goa & Anr.
- Postman Vengaisamy & Ors. v. State Represented by Inspector of Police & Ors.
- Kumar Ghimirey v. The State of Sikkim
- Dauwalal @ Ganesh Devangan & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh)
- Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v. State of Maharashtra
- Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra and Others
- Yashwant Etc. v. The State of Maharashtra
- Menoka Malik and Others v. The State of West Bengal and Others
- Lalit Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh
- Ms. X v. The State of Telangana and Anr.
- Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Pooranlal & Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- Ratanlal v. Prahlad Jat & Ors.
- Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- Roopendra Singh v. State of Tripura & Anr.
- Kattukulangara Madhavan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. v. Majeed & Ors.
- Ajay Kumar Singh v. The Flag Officer Commanding-In-Chief & Ors.
- Mumtaz @ Muntyaz v. State of U.P. (Now Uttarakhand)
- Punjab State Warehousing Corp. v. Bhushan Chander & Anr.
- Usmanganjadambhaivahora v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors.
- Yallawa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
- Bablu Kumarand Ors. v. State of Bihair and Anr.
- Ashwani Kumar @ Ashu & Anr. v. State of Punjab
- Sanjiv Kumar @ Gora v. State of Punjab