SUBJECT: LAW OF TORTS INCLUDING MV ACCIDENTS AND CONSUMER LAWS II

NAME: SOURIKA JANA

PRN: 20010223063
GROUP III
DIVISION D
SEMESTER II
COURSE: BA LLB
BATCH: 2020-2025

ANSWER 1
INTRODUCTION
False imprisonment is the total restraint of liberty of a person no matter the
time duration without lawful justification. The restraint can be an actual physical
restraint or by a mere show of authority. Restraint is punishable under section
339 of the Indian Penal Code as wrongful restraint and under section 340 of
Indian Penal Code as wrongful confinement. Wrongful restraint also overlaps
with a persons’ right to liberty under the protection to persons available under
Article 5 (1) the European Convention on Human Rights.
The compensation is awarded for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered
by the person due to the inconvenience and loss suffered due to illegal
restraint.
The elements for a suit of false imprisonment are:
 Complete deprivation of liberty
 Knowledge of restraint which is not an essential anymore
 The detention must be unlawful
In cases of false imprisonments, the burden of proof lies on the defendant to
prove that the restraint was not unlawful.

ANALYSIS/ APPLICATION
In the landmark case of Bird v. Jones, (1845) 7 QB 742,

FACTS

A part of a bridge generally used as a footway was used as a seat for watching a
boat race. The plaintiff insisted on using that appropriated part for crossing the
bridge and even tried to climb over the enclosure. The defendant tried to stop
him and stationed two police officers to prevent him from passing. The plaintiff
was told to go back into the carriage way and proceed to the other side of the
bridge if he wished to cross the river. The plaintiff refused to move and stayed
there for half an hour. The plaintiff then sued the defendant for false
imprisonment.
HELD
If one man merely obstructs the passage of another in a particular direction
whether by threat or violence or otherwise leaving him to stay where he is or to
go in any direction he pleases. He cannot be thereby said to imprison him.
Since he was free at will to move and just use another path, it is not a case of
false imprisonment.
In the landmark judgement of Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar, 1983 Indlaw
SC 231; (1983) 4 SCC 141; (1983) SCC (Cr) 798; AIR 1983 SC 1086,
FACTS
Rubdul Shah was arrested on the charges of murdering his wife but was
acquitted by the Sessions judge who directed his release from jail pending
further orders. He was retained in jail for 14 hours until there was a PIL filed on
his behalf. By the time the petition came up in court he had been released from
jail. The court asked the state the reason behind his delayed release but
received a delayed response.
HELD
The court held it to be an unjustified detention and asked the state to pay
30000 rupees as damages and did not preclude the petitioner from bringing
future lawsuit against the state and its officials appropriate damages relating to
his unlawful detention.
In the landmark judgement of Bahner v. Marvest Hotel, (1970) 12 DLR
646,
FACTS
A man had gone for dinner to a hotel and had ordered wine for himself. He
refused to pay for the second wine. The hotelier detained him over the disputed
bill, he gave his name and address still was kept detained.
HELD
Since he was detained even after providing the necessary details for the
repayment of the due which he owed the hotelier, it was considered as false
imprisonment.
As the legal counsel for Tanmay he can ask him to file a suit for false
imprisonment against Raman. The offence was that of wrongful detention and
confinement under section 340 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was a case of false imprisonment as the detention fulfilled all the necessary
essentials.
In the case of Birds v Jones, the plaintiff knew there was another way of
proceeding but stayed there on his own will. But in this case Raman had
confined Tanmay out of hostility and malicious intent to prevent him from
participating in the grand finale. The storeroom had another exit behind the
cupboard which Tanmay was unaware of and hence it could not be considered
as having the knowledge of another exit. There was a complete restraint on his
liberty to move and he was confined within the boundaries of the room by
locking of the door hence there was complete restraint.
In the case of Rudul Shah, the plaintiff was kept in the prison for 14years
without any lawful justification. It was merely the callousness of the prison
authorities. Here Raman had no legal or lawful authority to keep Tanmay
confined to the room.
With reference to the case of Bahner v. Marvest Hotel, the plaintiff was detained
even though he had completed the necessary formalities for his release. In
addition, he had not consented to the imprisonment. Both consent and lawful
justification are important in judging whether there is a false imprisonment. In
the absence of consent and any lawful justification this can be constituted as a
case of false imprisonment.
CONCLUSIONS
As the legal counsel of Tanmay I would ask him to file a suit for the offense of
false imprisonment. The necessary elements have been fulfilled. Raman can be
charged under wrongful confinement as defined in section 340 of the Indian
Penal Code and wrongful detention defined under section 339 of the Indian
Penal Code.

ANSWER 2
INTRODUCTION
Malicious prosecution means the institution against an innocent person where
the criminal proceedings started against him has proved to be unsuccessful and
have been conducted without probable and reasonable cause and in a malicious
spirit causing damage to the plaintiff in person, pocket or money.
The suit can be filed relating to Perjury, False Claim and false prosecution in a
judicial proceeding and its consequences under Section 209 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) & Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The following essentials are required to file a claim of malicious prosecution:
 Prosecution by the defendant
 Termination of proceedings in plaintiff’s favour
 Prosecution started without any reasonable and probable cause
 Prosecution started with a malicious intention
 Plaintiff must suffer damage

ANALYSIS/APPLICATION
In the landmark judgement of AH v AB [2009] EWCA Civ 1092,
FACTS
The defendant had a female friend who claimed that she had been raped by a
male co-worker, the plaintiff 10 years ago. The defendant when asked her to
file a suit she said she was hesitant and refused to do so. So, the defendant in
her stead filed a FIR against the plaintiff. So he started manipulating the entire
system and gives false incriminating evidence against the plaintiff. The woman
refused to give any evidence and testimony against the plaintiff but the
defendant manipulated her into doing it. However the plaintiff was acquitted in
the trials as it was found that the woman was lying, The plaintiff filed a suit for
malicious prosecution against the defendant.
HELD
As the defendant was liable for false evidence and manipulation of the
proceedings while taking a principal part in the conduct of the case along with
starting the criminal proceedings, he was liable for malicious prosecution.
In the landmark case of Martin v. Watson, [1996] 1 A.C. 74,
FACTS
The plaintiff had falsely reported to the police by the defendant, a neighbor, for
indecent exposure while standing on a ladder in his garden. He had been
arrested and charged on the basis of the accusation by the defendant but was
acquitted when there was no evidence against him.
HELD
The defendant was liable for malicious prosecution as he had falsely and
maliciously given information to the police which he knew was not true.
As the legal counsel for Mr.Sunit we can advise him to sue Ms.Sunita for
malicious prosecution.
The prosecution had been started by the defendant, Ms.Sunita after she had
taken the incriminating evidence against Mr.Sunit to the police. It was that
evidence that started the criminal proceedings against the plaintiff.
The prosecution had been terminated in favour of the plaintiff Mr.Sunit as it was
found that documents provided by the informant to MS.Sunita were forged and
hence he was not guilty of the crime.
The plaintiff had suffered damage in the form of person as he was arrested the
criminal proceedings must have caused him distress, pocket as he had to
defend himself in the proceedings and caused him his job from which he was
fired and reputation when he had been charged with a criminal offense.
As seen in the case of AH v AB, the woman had provided false evidence against
the plaintiff. Similarly in our case we can see that the informant had forged the
false documents and provided them to MS.Sunita. this shows the informant had
a malicious intent. Moreover we can see that the defendant in the provided case
law had manipulated the system and provided false evidence too. He also
convinced his friend to give testimony. Similarly the defendant Ms. Sunita was
also liable for malicious intent as she refused ot provide the evidence.
In refernce to Martin v. Watson, the informant also tppk a principal part in the
proceedings and would be liable for malicious prosecution.
CONCLUSION
We would advise Mr. Sumit to file a case for malicious prosecution under
Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) & Section 340 of the Criminal
Procedure Code..