Question Description
Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "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." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple 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. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Rajat threatens Riya not to leave her house. If Riya attempts to leave the house, Rajat would burn her house down. Is this a case of wrongful confinement?a)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat threatened Riya he would burn her house down.b)No, this is not a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat never communicated how he would burn the house down. It was barely a threat.c)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as no physical evidence is needed to prove confinement.d)Both 1 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "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." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple 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. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Rajat threatens Riya not to leave her house. If Riya attempts to leave the house, Rajat would burn her house down. Is this a case of wrongful confinement?a)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat threatened Riya he would burn her house down.b)No, this is not a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat never communicated how he would burn the house down. It was barely a threat.c)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as no physical evidence is needed to prove confinement.d)Both 1 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "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." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple 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. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Rajat threatens Riya not to leave her house. If Riya attempts to leave the house, Rajat would burn her house down. Is this a case of wrongful confinement?a)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat threatened Riya he would burn her house down.b)No, this is not a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat never communicated how he would burn the house down. It was barely a threat.c)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as no physical evidence is needed to prove confinement.d)Both 1 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "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." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple 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. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Rajat threatens Riya not to leave her house. If Riya attempts to leave the house, Rajat would burn her house down. Is this a case of wrongful confinement?a)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat threatened Riya he would burn her house down.b)No, this is not a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat never communicated how he would burn the house down. It was barely a threat.c)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as no physical evidence is needed to prove confinement.d)Both 1 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "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." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple 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. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Rajat threatens Riya not to leave her house. If Riya attempts to leave the house, Rajat would burn her house down. Is this a case of wrongful confinement?a)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat threatened Riya he would burn her house down.b)No, this is not a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat never communicated how he would burn the house down. It was barely a threat.c)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as no physical evidence is needed to prove confinement.d)Both 1 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "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." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple 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. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Rajat threatens Riya not to leave her house. If Riya attempts to leave the house, Rajat would burn her house down. Is this a case of wrongful confinement?a)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat threatened Riya he would burn her house down.b)No, this is not a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat never communicated how he would burn the house down. It was barely a threat.c)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as no physical evidence is needed to prove confinement.d)Both 1 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "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." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple 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. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Rajat threatens Riya not to leave her house. If Riya attempts to leave the house, Rajat would burn her house down. Is this a case of wrongful confinement?a)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat threatened Riya he would burn her house down.b)No, this is not a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat never communicated how he would burn the house down. It was barely a threat.c)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as no physical evidence is needed to prove confinement.d)Both 1 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "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." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple 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. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Rajat threatens Riya not to leave her house. If Riya attempts to leave the house, Rajat would burn her house down. Is this a case of wrongful confinement?a)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat threatened Riya he would burn her house down.b)No, this is not a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat never communicated how he would burn the house down. It was barely a threat.c)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as no physical evidence is needed to prove confinement.d)Both 1 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or personal liberty of another. Sections 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348.According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, "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." Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstructs a private way over land or water, then it does not amount to wrongful restraint. To establish the offence of wrongful restraint, the complainant must prove that there was an obstruction; the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction; the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the direction concerned.Wrongful confinement is defined under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code provides punishment for wrongful confinement. Wrongful confinement means that a person is wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines wrongful confinement as: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person." Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple 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. The offence under Section 340 of the Code is cognizable, bailable compoundable and triable by any Magistrate. Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code says that whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days or more, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.Q.Rajat threatens Riya not to leave her house. If Riya attempts to leave the house, Rajat would burn her house down. Is this a case of wrongful confinement?a)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat threatened Riya he would burn her house down.b)No, this is not a case of wrongful confinement as Rajat never communicated how he would burn the house down. It was barely a threat.c)Yes, this is a case of wrongful confinement as no physical evidence is needed to prove confinement.d)Both 1 and 3Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.