False imprisonment:

 According to Black Stone: “Every confinement of the person is an

imprisonment, whether it be in a common prison, or in a private

house, or in the stocks, or even by forcibly detaining one in the
public street”
 Duke and Atkin: “Imprisonment is no other thing but the restraint
of a man’s liberty whether it be in the open field or in the stocks or
in the show-case, in the streets, in a man’s own house as well as
in the common goal; and in all the places the party so constrained
is said to be a prisoner so long as he hath not his liberty freely to
go at all times to all places whither he will without bail or
otherwise.
 False imprisonment:

 Criminal Law- Wrongful Confinement:-

It must be said that false imprisonment falls under both civil law in
the form of a tort and is a criminal offence too. Section 340 of the
Indian Penal Code addresses false imprisonment by the name of
“wrongful confinement”.
 False imprisonment:

• According to Winfield:

Flase imprisonment consists in imprisonment of total restraint from

some period ,however short upon the liberty of another person.

1. It is total restraint of the person's liberty without lawful

justification

2. It consists force or threat of force

 It is also a crime
 False imprisonment:

 Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement (sec 340 IPC)

• Difference

• Remedy

• Art. 21 of the Indian constitution

 False imprisonment:

 Essentials of flase imprisonment:

 In action for damages for this tort plaintiff should prove:

 His imprisonment

 That it was caused by the defendant or by his servant acting in

the course of his employment

 It is sufficient that if the plaintiff has in any manner been

deprived of his personal liberty
 False imprisonment:

 In Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010)

In this case the court stated that false imprisonment is the non-
consensual, intentional confinement of a person, without lawful
privilege, for an appreciable length of time, however short
 False imprisonment:

 If an officer shows warrant to a person and he silently follows

him.
Would it be amount to flase imprisonment?

1. Total restraint:

 Duration of restraint is immaterial

 If the plaintiff agrees to submit certain restrictions of his liberty he

can not sue for flase imprisonment
 False imprisonment:

 If an officer shows warrant to a person and he silently follows

him.
Would it be amount to flase imprisonment?

1. Total restraint:

 Duration of restraint is immaterial

 If the plaintiff agrees to submit certain restrictions of his liberty he

can not sue for flase imprisonment
 False imprisonment:

Bird v. Jones, 7 Ad. & El. (N.S.) 742, 115 Eng. Rep 688 (1845)
In this case: The Hammersmith Bridge Company cordoned off part of
their bridge, placed seats on it, and charged spectators for viewing a
regatta.
The claimant objected to this and forced his way into the enclosure,
where he was stopped by two police officers, one being Jones. He
was prevented from proceeding across the bridge because he had not
paid the admission fee, but was allowed to go back the way he came.
He refused, and in the course of proceedings for his arrest the
question arose whether he had been imprisoned on the bridge.
 False imprisonment:

Bhim Singh vs. Jammu and Kashmir

This case deals with the issue of illegally detaining an MLA by the
name of Bhim Singh by the police authorities in the state of Jammu
and Kashmir. As per the facts of the case, the former had been
suspended from the J&K Assembly on August 17, 1985 and had
questioned the same in the High Court of the state, which stayed the
suspension in September. He was on his way to Srinagar from
Jammu on the intervening night of September 9-10, 1985. He was
arrested on his way by the police authorities and was taken away .
 False imprisonment:

The wife of Bhim Singh filed the application for the issue of the writ
to direct his release besides declaring his detention as illegal. On
being released on bail, Mr. Singh filed an affidavit in which he added
many more facts. In the same he stated that he was kept in the
police lock-up from the 10th to the 14th of September and was
produced before the Magistrate for the first time only on the 14th.
 False imprisonment:

Enright v. Groves, Colorado Court of Appeals, 1977.

The defendant, a police officer, was enforcing a dog leash ordinance

and approached the plaintiff in her car. He demanded her driver's
license several times, but she refused. Groves threatened to arrest
her if she didn't produce her license, but Enright did not comply.
Groves forcibly took her into custody and filed a complaint against
her for the dog leash violation, for which she was later convicted.
Enright sued for false imprisonment and won damages in the trial
court.
 False imprisonment:

The defendant appealed on the basis that he had probable cause to

arrest Enright, since she was later convicted.

The court reasons that the officer did not have proper legal authority
because there he evidence he did not arrest Groves for the dog leash
violation, but rather for failing to produce her driver's license. The
court affirmed the judgment of the trial court
 False imprisonment:

 Pitts v. State, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 29 (Ill. Ct. Cl. 1999)

In this case it was observed that the principal element of damages in

an action for false imprisonment is the loss of freedom, although a
court also takes into account, to a modest degree, the fear and
nervousness suffered as a result of the detention.
 False imprisonment:

• In order to constitute false imprisonment, there must be an

exercise of force, or express or implied threat of force, by which a
person is deprived of his/her liberty and compelled to remain
where s/he does not wish to remain.

• The restraint of a person can be caused by threats, as well as by

actual force and the threats can be by conduct or by words.
 False imprisonment:

• It is not necessary that the threat of force in an action for false

imprisonment be express. It can also be implied in nature.
•
 False imprisonment:

• Likewise, in Daniels v. Lutz (2005),

• In this case

• A federal court in Arkansas rejected a student’s false

imprisonment claim against a teacher who allegedly hit him and

grabbed him to prevent him from leaving a classroom. The court

allowed the student’s battery claim to proceed but dismissed the

false imprisonment claim on a motion for summary judgment.

 False imprisonment:

• The court noted that although the teacher attempted to hold the

student to get him to stay in the classroom, the student broke

free. The student then boarded a school bus and arrived home as

usual. Insofar as it was undisputed that the student was not

detained, the court dismissed the false imprisonment claim

 False imprisonment:

Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1919).

The plaintiff’s employers sent two works police to bring plaintiff in

for questioning at the company’s offices as they suspected him of

theft. He was taken to a waiting room. Once there he told the works

police that if he was not told why he was there he would leave. He

was informed that they were making inquiries about items that had

been stolen, and that he was wanted to give evidence.

 False imprisonment:

• Once told this, he agreed to stay. Unknown to plaintiff, the works

police had been instructed not to let him leave the waiting-room

until the Metropolitan Police arrived.

The works police therefore remained outside the waiting-room and

would not have allowed T to leave until he was handed over to the

Metropolitan Police, who subsequently arrested him.

 False imprisonment:

• The question for the Court of Appeal was whether on this evidence

plaintiff was falsely imprisoned during the hour he was in the

waiting-room, or whether there could be no “imprisonment

 False imprisonment:

 Pechulis v. City of Chicago, (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 1997)

• It is to be noted that, there is no necessity in a false imprisonment

case to prove that a person used physical violence or laid hands

on another person. It is sufficient to show that at any time or

place the person in any manner deprived another person of

his/her liberty without sufficient legal authority

 False imprisonment:

 Landry v. Duncan (La.App. 5 Cir. Apr. 26, 2005)

 In this case it was held that the False arrest is the unlawful
violation of the personal liberty of another consisting of detention
without sufficient legal authority. In order to establish a false
arrest claim, the person detained must prove that the arrest is
unlawful and such unlawful arrest resulted in injury. An arrest is
unlawful when the police officers in question did not have probable
cause to make the arrest
 False imprisonment:

 Dragna v. White, 45 Cal. 2d 469 (Cal. 1955).

 In this case:
An arresting officer who fails to take the arrested person before a
court or magistrate within a reasonable time or without unnecessary
delay is guilty of false imprisonment. Similarly, an officer who arrests
a person without a warrant is liable for false imprisonment by
detaining the prisoner an unreasonable time.
 False imprisonment:

D.K.BASU v. STATE OF WEST-BENGAL

In this case, the petitioners raised important issues concerning the

police powers and if monetary compensation should be awarded for
established infringement of Fundamental Rights, as under Article 21
and 22 of the Constitution,.
The court held that Custodial violence, including torture and death in
the lock ups, strikes a blow at the Rule of Law, which demands that
the powers of the executive should not only be derived from law but
also that the same should be limited by law.
.
 Hence, the court issued 11 directives to bring about a check on
police power:-
1. The Police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the
interrogation of the arrestee should bear accurate, visible and clear
identification and name-tags with their designations.

2. The Police officer carrying out arrest shall prepare a memo of

arrest which shall be attested by at least one witness who maybe
either a member of family of arrestee or respectable person of the
locality from where arrest is made.
3. The person arrested shall be entitled to inform his friend/relative
or person having interest in his welfares, as soon as practicable, that
he has been arrested and/or detained in a particular place.

4. The time, place and venue of arrest/custody of an arrestee must

be notified by the Police

5. The person arrested must be made aware if his right to have

someone informed of his arrest or detention as soon as he is arrested
or taken into custody.
6. An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention
giving all details about the relative/friend or person informed.

7. Where the arrestee so requests, he should be medically examined

at the time of arrest and major or minor injuries, if any must be
recorded. The ‘Inspection Memo’ should be signed both by the
arrestee, the Police officer effecting arrest.

8. The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by a

qualified doctor every 48 hours during his arrest, detention or
custody.
9. Copies of all documents including memo of arrest, should be sent
to the Magistrate having jurisdiction, for his record.

10. The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during

interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.

11. A Police Control Room should be provided at all district and State
headquarters, where information regarding arrest and the place of
custody of the arrestee shall be communicated by the officer causing
arrest within 12 hours of effecting the arrest.
 Flase imprisonment:

. MEE v. CRUIKSHANK

FACTS: After his acquittal, a prisoner was taken down to the cells
and detained there for a few minutes while some questions were put
to him by the warden.

HELD: It was a case of false imprisonment as the time of

confinement does not matter. What matters is restraint on the liberty
of that individual.
 False imprisonment:

BIRD v. JONES:
FACTS: In this case, a part of the public footway was wrongfully
enclosed by the defendant. Seats were put up and entry was allowed
to only those who paid for watching the rowing there. The plaintiff
asserted his right to using that footway, climbed up the fence of the
enclosure but was prevented to go forward. He remained there for
half an hour.
HELD: Not a case of false imprisonment as there was no “total
restrain”. The plaintiff could have easily taken another way.

.
 False imprisonment:

SEBASTIAN M.HONGRAY v. UNION OF INDIA

ISSUE: In the Sebastian Hongray case, two persons were taken into
custody by the Army authority in Manipur, but were not produced in
obedience to a writ of habeas corpus and it was alleged that those
persons must have met an unnatural death while in army custody.

HELD: The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to pay

exemplary damages for the role of the army authorities in murdering
the two persons
 False imprisonment:

 Knowledge of the plaintiff is not an essential:

Herring v Boyle
an action brought by a schoolboy against his headmaster for being
detained in the school during the holidays because his parents had
not paid the fees.
Murray V Minister of defence
It has been held that false imprisonment is actionable without proof
of knowledge that he was being detained or that he was harmed by
his detention.
 False imprisonment:

Meering vs. Grahame-white Aviation Co., (1920) 122 LT 44

Facts: The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant company on the

suspicion of stealing goods was made to wait in the waiting room.

The reason given to him was that he would be investigated about the

theft of goods that have happened in the Office. The police which

came later arrested the man. On his release, he filed a suit for false

imprisonment against the defendant.

 False imprisonment:

2. Detention must be Unlawful:

• It is necessary to prove that detention must be unlawful and

without any justification.

• An action for flase imprisonment will lie against any person who
authorizes or directs the unlawful arrest or detention of the
plaintiff by merely ministerial officers of the law ,as distinguished
from a judicial officer or court of justice.
 False imprisonment:

Kundal lal V Dr.Des raj (1954)

In this the surety applied for the bail bond. The superidetent of police
cancelled the bail bond and ordered the rearrests of the plaintiff. In
pursuance of these orders the plaintiff was rearrested by the sub
inspector. The power to cancel the bail bond and to order the re
arrest can only be exercised by the magistrate under the criminal
procedure code. The court held that the re-arrest of the plaintiff was
illegal and both the superidetent of police and the sub –inspector
were liable for flase imprisonment
 False imprisonment:

Garkipati V Arza biksham

In this case the defendant made a flase report the the police that the
plaintiff were responsible for setting fire to the defendant's property
on the basis of this report the police arrested the plaintiff. But the
charge was found to flase and they were discharged. It was held that
the decedent's were liable for flase imprisonment because they had
made a flase report against the plaintiff ,without any lawful
justification on the basis of which they were arrested
 False imprisonment:

Robinson v Balmin New Ferry Company Ltd.

In this case the plaintiff wanted to take a ferry across a river. In

order to get to the wharf from which the ferry would depart, he had
to go through the turnstile operated by the defendants. As notices on
either side made it clear that the charge of using the turnstile was
one penny. The plaintiff handed over the penny , went through the
turnstile and waited on the wharf for the ferry to arrive and pick him
up. The plaintiff than decided to not to take the ferry and changed
his plans.
 False imprisonment:

He wanted to go through the turnstile for which the defendants

resisted by saying that if he wanted to use the turnstile than he was
supposed to pay one penny. The plaintiff refused to pay the penny
and the defendants didn't allow him to use the turnstile. The plaintiff
sued the defendant's claiming that they had falsely imprisoned him.
The court dismissed his claim by stating that if he walked through
the turnstile than he voluntarily agreed to take the risk , that if he
would not pay a penny than he will not be allowed to go back, he
would be imprisoned by the defendants.?
 False imprisonment:

Herd v. Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Company Ltd .

In this case the plaintiff a minor descended to the bottom of the lift
at the start of his shift but than refused to do certain work and asked
to be lifted up to the surface. The plaintiff was allowed to go back to
the surface at the end of the morning shift and even than he was not
allowed to be taken back when all the workers of the morning shift
had been taken to the surface.
 False imprisonment:

The plaintiff sued the defendants claiming false imprisonment. The

House of Lords dismissed his claim and held that the plaintiff
voluntarily took the risk that if he did not work and wanted to be
taken back to the surface , than he can be made to wait.
 False imprisonment:

 Arrest by public authority:

Where the defendant apprehends any breach of peace or any

disturbance of public tranquility from the plaintiff, he may be kept
under preventive detention by the public authorities. Police and other
law enforcement agencies quite often invoke this measure for
maintenance of public peace.

 Section 41(1) of the Criminal Procedure code

 False imprisonment:

Dailison vs. Lafrey, (1911) AC 29

Facts: The plaintiff was arrested by the police for committing theft.
According to the information received by the police, he was identified
while committing theft.

Held: The plaintiff’s arrest was held lawful.

 False imprisonment:

 Arrest by private person

Sec 43 of code of criminal procedure Arrest by Private person and

procedure on such arrest.-

Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person

who in his presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence,
or any proclaimed offender, and, without unnecessary delay, shall
make over or cause to be made over any person so arrested to a
police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, take such person
or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station
 False imprisonment:

 Art 22 (2) of the Indian constitution

 Daiison V Lafery (1911)

 In this case the plaintiff was arrested by the police ,for

committing theft according to the information received by the
police ,he was identified while committing theft. It was held that
the plaintiff’s arrest was lawful. but if a person is arrested on the
basis of flase report by a person ,it will amount to flase
imprisonment
 False imprisonment:

 Abdul whid V Tribhuwan pati (1993)

In this case it has been held that if an officer arrests a person

without any authority he shall be liable for flase imprisonment.
In this case ,The revenue officer arrested the plaintiff and took him
to tehsil because he had not paid arrears of land revenue and
detained him for sometime and released him later.
it was held that defendants were liable for flase imprisonment
because the revenue authorities had no power to arrest the plaintiff
without warrant .he was taken to tehsil forcibly and against his wish.
 Judicial officers protection Act,1850

No Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace, Collector or other person acting

judicially shall be liable to be sued in any Civil Court for any act done or
ordered to be done by him in the discharge of his judicial duty, whether or
not within the limits of his jurisdiction: Provided that he at the time, in good
faith, believed himself to have jurisdiction to do or order the act complained
of ; and no officer of any Court or other person, bound to execute the lawful
warrants or orders of any such Judge, Magistrate, Justice of the Peace,
Collector or other person acting judicially shall be liable to be sued in any
Civil Court, for the execution of any warrant or order, which he would be
bound to execute, if within the jurisdiction of the person issuing the same.
 Self Defence:
Any other person while exercising self defence and thereby detains
another it will not amount to false imprisonment.

 Parental or other authority

 Public authority

 Judicial authority
 Volienti nonfit injuria:
 Herd vs. Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co., (1915) AC 67
 Facts: The plaintiff, a mine-worker descended a coal mine at
9:30am for work. He had a right to be lifted to the surface after
his shift that would get over at 4pm. During work, he refused to
do a certain task given to him and asked to be lifted at 11am. His
employer declined to do so.
Held: The plaintiff had given his consent to or agreed to abide by the
conditions on which he could go out of the mine. Since his contract of
service stated 4pm as the time when he would come out of the mine,
he was not detained wrongfully
 Lawful imprisonment:
 If it can be proved well beyond doubt, the burden of which falls on
the defendant that the person was confined for a lawful cause, the
complaint of false imprisonment shall fail.
 Contributory Negligence:
 When the plaintiff commits any act which amounts to contributory
negligence, the defendant can plead the defence of contributory
negligence.
 Parental Authority and Quasi-Parental Authority
 Remedies
 Action for Damages
 Damages in false imprisonment are those which flow from the
detention.
 The damages for false arrest are to be measured only to the time
of arraignment or indictment.
 There is no legal rule for the assessment of the damages and this
is entirely left on the court.
 The grounds for damages include injury to the person and physical
suffering, mental suffering and humiliation, loss of time earnings
and interruption of businesses, medical expenses incurred, injury
to the reputation etc.
 Writ of Habeas Corpus
The Supreme Court of India and High Court of states issue this writ
under article 32 and 226 respectively. This is concerned with the
cases of false arrest or for prolonged detention by police officers.
Here the person can apply for the writ which will command him to
come to the court on a certain day, stating the day and the cause of
his detention and than abiding by the decision made by the court.
The decision will be that either the prisoner will be released or if the
detention is proved than he will be speedily produced before the
court for a trial.
 Conclusion:

 The right to personal liberty and freedom has been guaranteed by

the Constitution under the articles 19,20 and 21 and the later two
articles cannot be abrogated even during emergency. It is very
well understood that false imprisonment essentially deals with the
total restraint on the liberty of the person irrespective of the fact
whether this restraint is made by the knowledge of the plaintiff or
whether the defendant intends to impose such a restraint on the
person. This is unlawful.
 The term of imprisonment is an important factor while considering
the award of damages. If the imprisonment is for a while still the
person has a claim for damages, which may be nominal.

 While awarding damages for false imprisonment physical or

mental injury, humiliation, loss of reputation, fright and the fact
that the imprisonment is affected recklessly, oppressively,
insultingly and maliciously with a design to oppress and injure has
to be kept in mind.
 The mere fact that the person has been imprisoned, raises the
claim of nominal or compensatory damages if no other injury was
caused to the plaintiff. If the injury caused is only mental suffering
still the defendant has a claim for damages, which may be nominal

Thank you