When a school teacher, in this case, the Madrassa teacher, beats a student with a cane, who created commotion in the school or showed disobedience to the Rules, whether he could be proceeded against under the provisions of the I.P.C., is the question that is before me for consideration.

2. Petitioner is an Arabic teacher at Manikkal Madrassa, near Venjarammoodu. On 23.9.2003 evening, the petitioner beat one Sajad, a student learning Arabic, with a cane on his buttock. He cried. He was taken to his house in the evening by two persons. He complained to his father, the de facto complainant, that he has got pain. He was shown to a private hospital at Venjarammooddu. As paid subsisted, he was taken to the S.U.T. Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Though the Juma-at office bearers promised to pay him the treatment expenses, they failed. Hence, he made a complaint before Venjaraammoddu Police Station on 1.11.2003, and the police registered Crime No.391/2003 under Section 324 I.P.C. The matter is now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, as C.C.No.1028/2003. Petitioner came up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the said proceedings.

3. The reporting of instances, similar to the facts stated above, are rare. Often, when such instances are brought to the notice of the parents or others, they are not taken seriously, as a teacher has an implied consent or authority to maintain the school discipline and also to train a student basing on the Rules of a school. When a student do not behave properly or act according to the Rules of a school, an if the teacher chastise him, on a bonafide intention, by giving him corporal punishment for improving his character and conduct, the Court has to ascertain whether the said act of the teacher was bonafide or not. If it is found that he had acted with a good intention, only to improve the student, it may not normally be brought under the penal provisions of the Code.

4. Sections 88 and 89 I.P.C. are the relevant provisions to the facts of this case and hence I reproduce them below:-

“88. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit. – Nothing which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.

89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian. – Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person:

5. The applicability of Sections 88 and 89 I.P.C. and administering of corporal punishments on students by the teachers for their benefit, came up for consideration in M. Natesan v. State of Madras and another (AIR 1962 Madras 216). It was a case where a boy of 15 years was sent with the progress report to get the signature of his parents in it. But he returned it with a thumb impression of another person, stating that the said thumb impression was that of his mother, which was proved to be wrong. The teacher got agitated and the beat the boy on his right palm, with a stick. He did not cry. He. Therefore, beat him again, asking him why he did not cry. This resulted in causing three injuries, two superficial and one contusion. The Madras High Court laid down the principle of law, at paragraph 5 as follows:-

“5. It cannot be denied that having regard to the peculiar position of a school teacher he must in the nature of things have authority to enforce discipl