SGT UNVIERSITY

Submitted by
Ankit Poswal (221201017)
BALLB (2 semester)
nd

Subject – Law of Torts -II and

Consumer Proctection Act
Topic – False Imprisonment
Submitted to –
Assit. Professor Rakhi Tewari
 What is false imprisonment?
 Wrongful imprisonment occurs when a person (who does not have the legal
right or justification) is intentionally restricts another person from exercising
his freedom. When someone intentionally restricts another person’s
freedom, he can be found liable for false imprisonment in civil and criminal
courts. The factors which constitute false imprisonment are:

1. Probable cause of imprisonment.

2. Plaintiff’s knowledge for imprisonment.
3. Intent of defendant during imprisonment and confinement period matters.

 This is applicable to both private as well as government detention. Under

criminal law, whether the restraint is total or partial, the same is actionable.
When the restraint is total and the person is prevented from going out of
certain circumscribed limits, the offence is that of ‘wrongful confinement’ as
defined in Section 340 of IPC. Under this, the Indian Penal Code punishes
wrongful imprisonment. Section 339 to 348. When it comes to the police,
proving false imprisonment is sufficient to obtain the writ of Habeas Corpus.
It is not mandatory that the person should be put behind bars, but he should
be confined in an area from which there are no possible ways of escape
except the person’s will who has confined him. Depending on the laws of a
particular jurisdiction, wrongful imprisonment can also be a crime, as well
as intentional tort.
 Under the pretext of false imprisonment, one does not have to lock the
person up, which amounts to confinement. Basically, the defendant has to
‘unjustifiably’ restrain an individual to a particular area where a reasonable
person, in a normal situation, would believe that they cannot leave. The
plaintiff must have sufficient cause to believe that he would be harmed if he
attempted to leave that particular bounded area. However, if that individual
remains in that area willingly or after giving his own consent, not obtained
through coercion or undue influence, it is not a case of false imprisonment. 

 False imprisonment occurs when there is an unjustified restraint on an

individual without his consent and where the individual cannot leave the
area or they reasonably believe that they cannot leave the area.
 Under the law of tort, false imprisonment can be termed as the complete
deprivation of liberty for any amount of time, no matter how limited or small
the time period is, without any lawful excuse or proper justification. 

 Examples :

 Some of the situational examples of false imprisonment are as follows:

The defendant’s locking the plaintiff in a room without his permission is a

case of false imprisonment. However, if the plaintiff is aware of the fact, it
is not false imprisonment.
A security guard or a police officer detains an individual due to their
appearances or use of some religious symbols for an unreasonable amount
of time also falls under the category of false imprisonment.
An armed robber in a bank restraining the right of the employees and
customers to move freely is another example of false imprisonment.
False imprisonment in nursing is considered when any patient is restrained
from meeting their relatives in the hospital or nursing home or is subjected
to neglect or abuse there by the caregivers. It also includes deliberate
medication given to a patient without their consent under physical or
emotional threat.
Terrorist organisations or criminal groups taking hostages of innocent people
is considered as false imprisonment since the movements of the people
taken hostage are severely restrained and they remain in a serious and life-
threatening condition.

 Situations that are not considered as false imprisonment :

To constitute false imprisonment, imprisonment in the general meaning is
not mandated. When a person is deprived of his personal liberty, whether by
being confined within the four walls or by being prevented from leaving the
place where he is, it is false imprisonment.

 The essentials required for the tort of false imprisonment are:

 1. The liberty of an individual should be totally restrained.
2. It should be without any lawful justification or any reasonable cause.

 Every type of restraint does not fall under the area of false imprisonment,
especially if it does not contain any of the elements mentioned. The
following are some examples of situations with relevant cases which are not
considered as false imprisonment.

 Consent of the plaintiff :

 An important element that decides whether any situation should be
considered as false imprisonment or not is the consent provided by the
plaintiff. If the plaintiff is either aware of the facts or has provided consent
to be restrained, it is not considered a false imprisonment. However, the
consent provided by the plaintiff should be free of any fraud, coercion, or
undue influence.
 The landmark mental health law case of R (L) v Bournewood Community
and Mental Health NHS Trust (1997) deals with the fact of whether the
admission of a mentally ill patient with the capacity to provide consent to a
psychiatric hospital amounts to false imprisonment or not. The plaintiff was
an autistic person who was admitted to the hospital for nearly thirty years.
Thereafter, he was discharged and lived under the supervision of a caregiver.
While attending the hospital for a regular checkup, he became extremely
agitated and was once again admitted to the hospital.
 A case was filed on his behalf claiming that the action of hospital authorities
amounted to wrongful detention since the patient himself did not provide the
consent. The Queen’s Bench Division held that the patient hardly had the
capacity to comprehend the situation and hence he was not detained.

 Entering any premise under a contract :

 If an individual enters into any premise after having agreed to any contract
and he has to stay there longer than the time period mentioned in the
contract, it is not considered as false imprisonment.

 In the case of Robertson v. the Balmain New Ferry Company Ltd.

(1909), the plaintiff wanted to cross the river by ferry, and so he paid a
penny for the ferry ride. However, he missed his ferry and decided to leave.
 So, the ferry company asked him to pay another penny to leave. He did not
agree to pay another penny as asked. Hence, the ferry company prevented
him from leaving the premises unless he paid the penny. The plaintiff sued
the company for false imprisonment. 
 It was ruled that since he entered into a contract to pay for entering, riding,
and leaving the ferry, he was bound to pay the amount asked by the ferry
company. It did not amount to false imprisonment. The defendant company
had the reasonable authority to charge money and prevent him from leaving
when he refused to pay, since it was the plaintiff who had agreed to the
contract earlier.
 In another landmark case, Herd v. Weardale Steel Coal & Coke Ltd.
(1915), the plaintiff, Herd, was a miner who agreed to work in the mine from
9:30 am to 4:00 pm. He was lifted from the  mine with the help of a lift after
the end of the workshift. However, on that particular day, he wanted to go up
to the surface at 11:00 am but was not lifted until 1:30 pm. For that period of
time, he was detained and filed a suit for damages under false imprisonment.
 It was held that there was no false imprisonment under the defence of volenti
non fit injuria, where the plaintiff intentionally places himself in a dangerous
or harmful position. Here, the plaintiff willingly went inside the mine and
hence is not entitled to claim damages under false imprisonment.

 In the case of Roles v. Nathan (1963), the defendant was the owner of a

premise with a central heating boiler, and two chimney sweepers died in the
basement while repairing an old chimney due to the carbon monoxide
present in chimney fumes. However, the deceased were warned of the facts,
but they did not pay any heed. Due to this, it was held that the defendant was
not liable. 

 Restraint by persons with lawful authorities :

 If a person is arrested by people who possess the appropriate lawful
authorities, it is not termed as a false imprisonment. However, the restraint
should follow just and fair legal procedures. 

 Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides the right to protection of life

and personal liberty and provides that liberty can only be compromised
according to the just and fair procedures laid down by the laws of the land. 
 Section 41(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 provides that
a police officer may arrest a person accused of any cognizable offence or
against whom any complaint has been filed.
 Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides that the
authorities should inform a person of the details of the offences for which he
is being arrested or taken into custody. 

 Restraint by parental or quasi-parental authority  :

 Restraint or detention of minors or persons of unsound mind by their parents
or legal guardians is also not considered as false imprisonment since the
restraint is usually performed for the well-being of the concerned minor or
person of unsound mind.
 Under the tort, quasi-parental authorities are the authorities provided by the
parents to third party persons such as teachers or babysitters. They can also
perform acts of detention or restraint within the course of their duty for the
well-being of the child and it is not considered as false imprisonment.
 In the case of R.C. Thampan and Ors. vs. The Principal, Medical College
(1978), the Kerala High Court held that a teacher has the quasi-parental
authority to proceed with disciplinary action against a student.
 In the case of Eisel v. Board of Education (1991), the Court of Appeals of
Maryland held that reasonable professional behaviour should be the norm in
situations where one possesses quasi-parental authority. Here, Nicole Eisel,
a thirteen year old girl made several suicidal statements to her classmates
some of informed the Counsellor of her intentions. The counsellor advised
the student but did not inform her parents about the matter. Later, the girl
committed suicide, and her father filed a suit against the school authorities.
The Court also ruled that the school authorities, especially the student
counsellor, possessed quasi-parental authority. 

 Shopkeeper’s privilege :
 The doctrine of shopkeeper’s privilege is a special provision provided by
the United States Tort Law which enables a shopkeeper to detain an
individual under reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed the
offence of shoplifting. It is a privilege provided to shopkeepers to detain any
individual suspected of theft without the liability of false imprisonment.

 A shopkeeper is entitled to the privilege if he satisfies the following

conditions:
 The individual was restrained for a limited time and was detained for the
purpose of investigation.
Has justified reasons to believe that the individual committed the offence of
shoplifting.
No excessive force was used on the individual, and he was not harmed.
The individual was detained only for the limited period of time required to
gather evidence of shoplifting.
If proven guilty, the news has to be communicated to the police, and the
guilty should be handed to them.

 Elements of false imprisonment :

All states have laws regarding false imprisonment designed for protecting
people from being confined against their will. The laws of each state vary,
but in general, certain constituents of false imprisonment must be present to
prove a legal claim. To prove a false imprisonment claim in a civil suit, the
following elements must be present:

 Wilful detention :
False imprisonment or restraint must be intentional or wilful. Accidentally
closing the door when someone is on the other side is not a wrongful
confinement or false imprisonment. Wilful detention applies to intentional
restraint in any form, including physically restraining a person from exiting,
physically locking him in a building, room, or from other places, and
restraining him from leaving through force or intimidation.

 The intention factor :

Generally, the tort of false imprisonment must be intentional. A person is not
liable for false imprisonment unless his or her act is done for the purpose of
imposing a confinement or with knowledge that such confinement, to a
substantial certainty will result from it. for this tort, Malice is irrelevant . It
is ordinarily upon the judges to determine from the evidence, as a question
of fact, the intention of the defendant in an action for false imprisonment. 
 Knowledge of the plaintiff :
 The detention of another person would have been wrong. There is no
requirement that the plaintiff claiming another person for false imprisonment
was aware of his restraint on his freedom at the time of his confinement.
 In the case of Herring v Boyle, it has been held that such knowledge is
essential , in that case a schoolmaster wrongfully refused to permit a
schoolboy to go with his mother unless the mother paid an amount alleged to
be due to him , the conversation between the mother and schoolmaster was
made in the absence of the boy and he was not cognizant of the restraint. It
was held that the refusal to the mother in the boy’s absence, and without his
being cognizant of the restraint, could not amount to false imprisonment.
 In the case of Meering v Graham White Aviation, the claimant was asked to
go to a room with two work policemen from the Aviation company. He
asked why and stated he would leave if not told. When told it was on
suspicion of theft he agreed to stay, and the works police stood outside until
the metropolitan police arrived. Unknown to him they were asked to prevent
him leaving. It was held that an act which fulfils the requirement for a false
imprisonment, even if the claimant is unaware of it at the time, still counts.
Meering was entitled to damages.

 Total restraint of liberty :

 The purpose of the tort of false imprisonment is to maintain an individual’s
liberty of unrestricted movement. So there should be the imposition of total
restraint on the liberty of an individual for a particular period without any
lawful justification. If the defendant intentionally restricts the freedom of the
plaintiff and the plaintiff, as a reasonable person finds no way to use his
liberty, it is considered as a false imprisonment.
 In the landmark case of Bird v. Jones (1845), the plaintiff was prohibited by
the police from crossing a particular area of public road which was  closed
due to a boat race. However, he was free to pass from all the other directions
of the public road which were not closed. It was held that partial restraint
does not fall under false imprisonment since he could have easily used the
other directions.
 In the case of Jwala Prasad vs S.N. Varma (1970), the Allahabad High
Court held that the arrest of a citizen without any lawful justification is the
total restraint of his physical liberty and the plaintiff is entitled to damages
for the wrong of false imprisonment.
 The intention factor (More content for existing heading) :
 As mentioned earlier, false imprisonment is an intentional tort, and the
common element of an intentional tort is that the plaintiff must show that the
defendant acted with intention. An individual acts with intent when he acts
for the specific purpose of causing a specific consequence. 
 The defendant must have committed the restraint intentionally or must
intend to do an act that results in the restraint of the plaintiff.
 In the case of W. Elphinstone v. Lee Leng San (1938), the plaintiff was
restrained by a police officer mistakenly at the entrance of the court for the
charge of driving without proper brakes. The plaintiff claimed that he was
arrested due to the negligence of the police officer.
 It was held that in order to establish the tort of false imprisonment, the
intention of the defendant is a prerequisite. Since the police officer had no
intention to unlawfully restrain the plaintiff, it is not a case of false
imprisonment.

 Unlawful act :
 The defendant’s conduct must be unlawful. In this context, ‘unlawful’ means
unconsented to or unprivileged. It must be proved that the defendant was not
justified in restraining the plaintiff. A plaintiff who agrees to be restrained
has consented and therefore cannot bring the claim of false imprisonment. If
an individual has the authority to restrain the plaintiff, such as the police, the
plaintiff cannot bring the claim because the police have the privilege to
restrain the individual. 
 So, it must be shown that the defendant had no valid legal reasons or
authority to detain the plaintiff and that the plaintiff did not give any
consent. Hence, the defendant’s act was unconsented or unprivileged.
 In the case of T. Subramani vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012), the plaintiff
suffered a wrongful order of detention of one year in a central prison.
Subsequently, the order was quashed and he was offered compensation. It
was also noted by the Madras High Court that he was an agriculturist and
from a respectful family who protested the forceful conversions of poor
Hindus to other religions with money and other benefits. He also sent
complaints against the defendant IAS and the Inspector of Police for failing
to stop forceful conversions. In return, they conspired against the plaintiff
and caused his wrongful loss. The Court held that he suffered from false
 imprisonment due to “wrongful exercise and misuse of power” and was
entitled to get compensation.

 Force or threat of force :

 Use of force or the threat to use force to restrain someone else also comes
under false imprisonment. In such a situation, the plaintiff may prove before
the court that the defendant forcefully restrained the plaintiff. However, it is
also enough to show that the defendant threatened to use force. Due to the
threat, the plaintiff has been forced to comply with the defendant. Words and
other types of communication may be reasonably interpreted as a threat.
However, it may sometimes be difficult to distinguish between what a
reasonable person would consider a  sufficient threat of force or whether the
plaintiff has voluntarily agreed to be restrained. 
 The Madras High Court in the case of Chinnamuthu Ambalam vs S.
Jagannatha Chariar (1958)  held that the tort of false imprisonment is
usually accompanied with force or threat of force.

 Bounded area :
 The tort of false imprisonment protects a person’s interest in being free from
restraint. The bounded area does not mean putting the plaintiff under lock
and key, which falls under the tort of confinement. For example, a person
can be falsely imprisoned in a car if the driver of a car refuses to stop and let
the person out even though the doors are unlocked.
 A person can even be restrained to a bounded area in the open streets of a
city. The point is that the defendant sets boundaries to restrain the person. 
 However, it requires total restraint to the bounded area to qualify for false
imprisonment. So, if the individual blocks the passage in one direction only
and allows him to go another way, it is not considered as false imprisonment
since there are reasonable ways to leave the bounded area. Similarly, if an
individual shuts another in a room but there is an exit that the person can
access, it is not a bounded area.
 The Delhi District Court in the case of Rajesh Duggal vs Union of India
(2017) ruled that for committing the tort of false imprisonment, the plaintiff
is only required to prove that he was imprisoned by the defendants or their
servants during the time of employment.  Here, the plaintiff filed a suit for
damages for wrongful arrest and detention. The plaintiff, in this case, was a
victim of false imprisonment due to the actions of the defendants and the
 police. Even though the plaintiff had criminal charges against him, he
successfully proved that he was falsely imprisoned and was awarded the
damages.  

 Knowledge or ignorance of the plaintiff (More content for

existing heading) :
 The element of knowledge under this tort reflects the purpose of the tort,
which is to protect a person’s knowledge that he is free to move around. If
he is not aware that he cannot move around as he pleases, there is
no real interference that the law recognises. So a person who is not
conscious at the time of the restraint, cannot fulfil the requirement of false
imprisonment.
 Alternatively, even after having the knowledge, if the person is able to prove
in court that he was physically harmed during the restraint, it will be
considered false imprisonment. So, if a plaintiff, even if unaware but
suffering from injuries due to the acts of the defendant, can satisfy this
element.

 Omission of duty :

 Under the law of tort, omission is the act of not doing something or the
failure to act. In ordinary situations, the tort of false imprisonment is not
committed by an act of omission. However, in some situations, it may be
committed due to omission.
 In the case of Regina v. Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brockhill Ex
Parte Evans (2000), Evans was sentenced to two years of prison but was
entitled to a reduction of terms under the Criminal Justice Act, 2003.
However, she had to remain in the prison for an extra 59 days due to the
miscalculation made by the governor of the prison. She claimed damages for
false imprisonment.
 The Court of Appeal awarded her £5,000 for damages for false
imprisonment, against which the governor appealed. The appeal was
dismissed by the House of Lords, and they upheld the previous judgement.