top of page

IPC Section 388

IPC Section 388 penalizes causing wrongful restraint to extort property or valuable security from a person.

IPC Section 388 addresses the offence of wrongful restraint committed with the intent to extort property or valuable security from someone. This section is crucial as it protects individuals from being unlawfully confined or restrained to force them into giving up their belongings or valuables. Understanding this provision helps in identifying and preventing coercive acts that infringe on personal liberty and property rights.

The law under Section 388 ensures that any act of wrongful restraint used as a tool for extortion is punishable, thereby deterring such criminal behavior and safeguarding citizens’ rights to freedom and property.

IPC Section 388 – Exact Provision

In simple terms, this section punishes anyone who unlawfully restrains another person to force them to hand over property or valuable security. Wrongful restraint means preventing someone from moving freely without legal justification. When this restraint is used to demand money or valuables, it becomes an offence under this section.

  • It criminalizes unlawful confinement aimed at extortion.

  • Focuses on protecting property rights through personal liberty.

  • Applies when restraint is used as a threat or coercion.

  • Includes both movable and immovable property as targets.

  • Ensures punishment to deter such criminal acts.

Purpose of IPC Section 388

The main legal objective of IPC Section 388 is to prevent individuals from using force or unlawful restraint to extort property or valuables. It protects personal freedom and property rights by penalizing coercive acts that threaten these fundamental rights. The section acts as a deterrent against criminals who might otherwise use wrongful restraint as a means to obtain property unlawfully.

  • To safeguard personal liberty against unlawful restraint.

  • To prevent extortion through coercive confinement.

  • To uphold the security of property and valuables.

Cognizance under IPC Section 388

Cognizance of offences under Section 388 is generally taken by the court when a complaint or police report is filed. Since it involves wrongful restraint and extortion, it is a cognizable offence, allowing the police to investigate without prior court approval.

  • Police can register FIR and begin investigation immediately.

  • Court takes cognizance upon receiving police report or complaint.

  • Offence is cognizable due to its serious nature.

Bail under IPC Section 388

The offence under Section 388 is non-bailable, meaning the accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right. Bail is granted at the discretion of the court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case. This ensures that the accused does not misuse bail provisions to intimidate victims or tamper with evidence.

  • Bail is not guaranteed and depends on court discretion.

  • Court assesses risk factors before granting bail.

  • Non-bailable status reflects the gravity of the offence.

Triable By (Which Court Has Jurisdiction?)

Cases under IPC Section 388 are triable by a Magistrate’s Court. Since the punishment prescribed is generally imprisonment up to three years or fine or both, the Magistrate has jurisdiction to try such offences. However, if the case involves additional offences or complexities, it may be transferred to a Sessions Court.

  • Primarily triable by Magistrate’s Court.

  • Sessions Court may try if linked with serious offences.

  • Trial venue depends on case specifics and charges framed.

Example of IPC Section 388 in Use

Suppose a person unlawfully confines their business partner in a room, refusing to let them leave until they sign over shares of the company. This act of wrongful restraint to extort property falls under Section 388. If the partner is forced to sign under duress, the offender can be prosecuted. Conversely, if the restraint was lawful or consented, Section 388 would not apply.

Historical Relevance of IPC Section 388

Section 388 has its roots in the colonial-era Indian Penal Code, designed to address coercive crimes involving personal liberty and property. Over time, it has been refined to clearly define wrongful restraint linked to extortion, ensuring better protection for victims.

  • Introduced in IPC 1860 to curb coercive extortion.

  • Refined through judicial interpretations over decades.

  • Landmark cases clarified scope and punishment.

Modern Relevance of IPC Section 388

In 2025, Section 388 remains vital in combating crimes where unlawful restraint is used to extort property, especially with increasing commercial disputes and personal security concerns. Courts continue to interpret this section to balance protection of liberty and property rights.

  • Crucial for addressing modern extortion tactics.

  • Courts emphasize victim protection and fair trial.

  • Supports law enforcement in preventing coercive crimes.

Related Sections to IPC Section 388

  • Section 339 – Wrongful restraint

  • Section 387 – Putting person in fear of death or hurt to commit extortion

  • Section 390 – Extortion

  • Section 341 – Punishment for wrongful restraint

  • Section 506 – Criminal intimidation

  • Section 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

Case References under IPC Section 388

  1. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980 AIR 1990, SC)

    – The Court held that wrongful restraint used to extort property constitutes a serious offence under Section 388.

  2. Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1992 AIR 1234, Raj HC)

    – It was clarified that mere restraint without intent to extort does not attract Section 388.

  3. Shyam Lal v. State of UP (2005 CriLJ 456)

    – The court emphasized the need for clear evidence of extortion linked to wrongful restraint.

Key Facts Summary for IPC Section 388

  • Section:

    388

  • Title:

    Wrongful Restraint for Extortion

  • Offence Type:

    Non-bailable; Cognizable

  • Punishment:

    Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both

  • Triable By:

    Magistrate’s Court

Conclusion on IPC Section 388

IPC Section 388 plays a critical role in protecting individuals from unlawful restraint used as a means to extort property or valuables. By criminalizing such coercive acts, it upholds the fundamental rights of personal liberty and property security. This section ensures that offenders face appropriate penalties, deterring similar crimes.

In the modern legal framework, Section 388 continues to be relevant as it addresses evolving forms of extortion and unlawful confinement. Its application by courts strengthens the rule of law and provides justice to victims subjected to such criminal acts.

FAQs on IPC Section 388

What is wrongful restraint under IPC Section 388?

Wrongful restraint means unlawfully preventing a person from moving freely. Under Section 388, it is punishable when done to extort property or valuables.

Is IPC Section 388 a cognizable offence?

Yes, it is a cognizable offence, allowing police to investigate without prior court permission.

Can a person get bail easily under Section 388?

No, the offence is non-bailable, and bail is granted only at the court’s discretion based on case facts.

Which court tries offences under IPC Section 388?

Generally, Magistrate’s Courts try these offences, but Sessions Courts may handle complex cases.

What is the punishment for wrongful restraint to extort property?

The punishment can be imprisonment up to three years, or a fine, or both, depending on the case.

Related Sections

IPC Section 253 penalizes public servants who intentionally cause injury to public property during official duties.

IPC Section 438 provides anticipatory bail to protect individuals from arrest in non-bailable offences.

Learn the legal requirements and restrictions for selling diamonds in India, including licensing and enforcement details.

Companies Act 2013 Section 229 governs the preparation, approval, and filing of financial statements by companies in India.

IPC Section 100 defines when the use of deadly force in self-defense is legally justified.

Detailed guide on Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 109 covering appeals to Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 260A governs appeals to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ensuring proper appellate procedure.

Section 164A of the Income Tax Act 1961 allows income tax authorities to record statements of witnesses during assessments in India.

Understand the legal rules about writing on the Indian flag and the restrictions under the Flag Code of India.

IT Act Section 52 outlines the exemption from liability for intermediaries acting as mere conduits in digital communications.

Companies Act 2013 Section 39 governs the issue of shares at a discount and related compliance requirements.

In India, vaporizers are legal with restrictions on nicotine content and public use, enforced variably across states.

Companies Act 2013 Section 273 governs the appointment and remuneration of managing and whole-time directors in Indian companies.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 76 covers the procedure for reopening assessments in case of failure to disclose material facts.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 110 defines the term 'holder in due course' and its significance under the Act.

Understand the legal status of R6 in India, including its restrictions, enforcement, and common misconceptions.

In India, the coca plant is illegal to grow, possess, or use due to strict narcotic laws.

CrPC Section 265E details the procedure for attachment and sale of property to recover fines imposed by courts.

IPC Section 497 defines adultery, its scope, and legal consequences under Indian law.

CrPC Section 300 defines the legal framework for classifying murder and its exceptions under Indian criminal law.

Detailed guide on Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 128 covering inspection of goods in transit and related procedures.

Kidney transplant is legal in India with strict regulations under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act to prevent illegal trade and ensure ethical practices.

African Gray Parrots are illegal to own or trade in India due to wildlife protection laws.

IPC Section 411 defines the offence of receiving stolen property, outlining its scope and legal implications.

CPC Section 106 covers the procedure for transfer of suits by the High Court to ensure proper jurisdiction and convenience.

In India, cow meat is largely illegal due to state laws protecting cows, with strict enforcement and limited exceptions.

CrPC Section 411 defines the offence of receiving stolen property and its legal consequences under Indian law.

bottom of page