IMPORTANT POINTS
A teacher who in the course of imparting education beats a student bona fide to maintain discipline, then such a teacher is given an implied consent by the parent to discipline the pupil for the welfare of the pupil and it flows from the well known common law principle of ‘Loco parentis’ and in such a case it cannot be said that the teacher has committed an offence as per the Indian Penal Code. Of course, those aspects of the matter may be more relevant in a case where the student is a minor studying in an school, etc.

ORDER :

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the sole accused in the instant Crime No.832/2019 of Kannur Town Police Station, which has been registered for offence punishable under Sec. 323 of the I.P.C. The lady defacto complainant in this case is the 3rd respondent herein, who is a student in the college concerned for M.Com. II Year batch, wherein the petitioner herein is working as principal. On 3.7.2019 the 3rd respondent had lodged a statement before the Kannur Town Police alleging the petitioner herein, who is the head of the Department of Commerce, Chinmaya Mission College, Thalap, Kannur, where the 3rd respondent is studying for M.Com., has raised her voice, while several other teachers and students were present and shouted the following words:

“Have I not got right to question you, am I not your tutor, why should Seema ask anything”.

Further that the petitioner has taken the 3rd respondent to the library and in the presence of the librarian, Seema, shouted at Seema as well. According to the 3rd respondent, on account of this, she has suffered mental agony and she was admitted to Government hospital and has examined by a doctor. The 2nd respondent Sub Inspector Police, Town Police Station then filed a petition before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kannur, seeking permission to register crime in terms of Sec. 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., as the alleged offence of Sec. 323 of the I.P.C. is a non cognizable offence. It appears that, based on the permission granted by the learned Magistrate, the SHO has registered the impugned Anx.3 Crime No. 832/2019 of Kannur Town Police Station, where the offence alleged is one punishable as per Sec. 323 of the I.P.C. and the petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused therein for the said offence.

2. Heard Sri.B.G.Harindranath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accused and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, learned Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 & 2. Though notice has been duly served on R-3 by special messenger, there is no appearance for that party.

3. The main allegation raised by the 3rd respondent in Anx.1 petition filed before the SHO concerned, which later led to the registration of the crime, is as follows:

Admittedly there are no allegations therein that the petitioner has in any manner physically hurt the 3rd respondent.

4. Sec. 319 of the I.P.C. defines hurt as follows:

“Sec.319: Hurt.-Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

Sec. 95 of the I.P.C. deals with act causing slight harm, which provides as follows:

“Sec. 95: Act causing slight harm.-Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.”

5. Indisputably, the abovesaid allegations raised in Anx. 1 cannot be said to constitute the vital ingredients of the elementary definition of “hurt” as conceived in Sec. 319 of the I.P.C. Even assuming that any slight harm has been caused, it has to be borne in mind that the petitioner is the teacher of the 3rd respondent and it has been specifically provided by the Legislature as per Sec.95 of the I.P.C. that nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

6. It is by now well settled by a series of rulings of the Apex Court as in Veeda Menesez v. Yusuf Khan Haji Ibrahim Khan & Anr. [AIR 1966 SC 1773 = 1996 KHC 702] that Sec. 95 if the I.P.C. of the applies if the act causes harm or is intended to causes harm, or is known to be likely to cause harm, provided the harm is so slight that no person or ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. That apart, it is also now well settled by a series of rulings as in Abdul Vaheed v. State of Kerala [2005(2) KLT 72], M. N