IMPORTANT POINTS
It is not the scheme and spirit of S.23 that every doing of an act by the person in charge or control of the juvenile, which affects the body and mind of the child would constitute an offence punishable under the section despite it lacks criminal intention. The expression 'willfully' in Section 23 of the JJ Act must be given meaningful consideration. Likewise, the expression 'unnecessary' preceding the words 'mental or physical suffering' is also relevant.

ORDER :

The petitioners are the two teachers of Al- Ameen Public School, Edappally and the accused in S.C.No.630/14 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam. The de facto complainant's minor son who is CW2, was a student of 6th standard in the school. The specific accusation in the Annexure-A1 final report, against the petitioners is that on 27.9.2013, they made the student sit on the floor of the classroom and write the examination and this act of the petitioners amounted to causing mental harassment to CW2 and therefore they are liable to punishment for commission of the offence u/s. 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short, 'the J.J.Act',2000) r/w S.34 IPC which corresponds to S.75 of the new J.J. Act, 2015. Crime No.1980 of 2013 was registered against the petitioners on the motion of the second respondent, who is the father of the student, through Annexure-A2 complaint laid before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kalmasserry.

2. The petitioners seek to quash Annexure-A1 invoking inherent power of this Court u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C on the premise that if prosecution against them is permitted, it would only contribute to perpetuating abuse of the process of law. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the allegations made against them are absolutely false and they have not committed any offence punishable under the J.J. Act, 2000. The sum and substance of the contention is that no materials have been collected to establish that an offence u/s.23 of the Act, 2000 was committed but on the other hand, there are enough materials to show that the prosecution has been initiated with the sole purpose of tarnishing the reputation of the public school.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the second respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the alleged act of the petitioners by which CW2 was seated on the floor of the classroom for writing the examination amounted to commission of offence punishable u/s.23 of the J.J. Act, 2000. As per the said section, a person having actual charge or control over the child is liable to punishment for any act by which he causes physical or mental harassment to the child. So far as the present case is concerned, the petitioners are not accused of having caused any physical harassment. The sole accusation as per Annexure-A1 is that the petitioners made CW2 sit on the floor and attend the examination.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that when the statements made by second respondent in Annexure-A2 complaint are perused, it is evident that CW2 was in fact made to stand on his knees and write the examination for about 3½ hours. In this respect, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before me that the allegations so made against the petitioners were however, not fully accepted as true and convincing upon the completion of investigation. It is further submitted that there is no independent eyewitness to the incident other than what CW2 had stated before the police. Looking at the materials before me also, it appears that the sole eyewitness to the incident is CW2. It is also an admitted fact that along with CW2 there was another student of the same class, who was allegedly made to stand on his knees and write the examination. But for reasons not known, that student has not raised any complaint against these petitioners or the school authorities. In any view of the matter, CW2's own statement reveals that he was provided with a chair to write the examination though he had to be on his knees. Suffice it to say, that the investigating officer after evaluating the entire materials before him, was satisfied that the petitioners did not do any other act than making the CW2 sit on the floor of the room and appear for the examination. If the second respondent who is the de facto complainant was really a