IMPORTANT POINT
Disciplinary actions by teachers do not constitute offences under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act if not intended to cause unnecessary suffering.

ORDER :

A. Badharudeen, J.

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash Annexure 4 summons and Annexure 3 Final Report and all further proceedings in S.C.No.154/2024 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-1, Thrissur, arose out of C.P.No.76/2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad in Crime No.29/2023 of Vadanapally police station, Thrissur. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above case.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the relevant records.

3. Although notice served upon the 2nd respondent, no appearance.

4. Here, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, 'the JJ Act' hereinafter). The specific allegation is that, the accused herein, who is none other than the teacher of the victim, who was studying in 7th Std., beat the victim, when the teacher noticed that he was sitting at the class after placing his legs on the top of the desk. The further allegation is that, the teacher caught hold on his ears and thereby, sustained injuries. Accordingly, the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences.

5. While seeking quashment of the proceedings, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in this case, no serious injuries sustained to the victim. It is specifically pointed out that, in the statement given by the victim in support of the prosecution case, it is admitted that, at the time of occurrence, the teacher questioned when the victim had placed his legs on the top of the desk while sitting, he called the teacher an abusive word, viz., "" and in turn, the teacher beat him by using a stick and sent him out. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed decision of this Court in Sindhu Sivadas v. State of Kerala reported in [2024 KLT OnLine 2559], to contend that, in this matter, when the teacher saw the student sitting by placing his legs on the top of the desk at the class, as a response, the teacher instructed him to remove it and soon the victim abused the teacher by calling a word and in turn, the teacher beat the victim, by using a stick. In the decision in Sindhu's case (supra), in paragraph No.7, it was held as under :

7. On scanning the above penal provision, unnecessary mental or physical suffering to a child, on account of assault, abandonment, abuse, exposure or wilful neglect of the child or causing or procuring the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected, are the essentials to constitute the said offence. When a teacher insists for wearing uniform, on seeing a student, who reached the school in colour dress, the same is intended for the purpose of maintaining the discipline of the school in the matter of uniform dress code, and the same, in no way, could be held as as an act, which would cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering to the child, so as to attract the offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act. If, as part of maintenance of the discipline of the school when wearing of uniform dress is made mandatory, it is the duty of the students to obey the same, so as to keep the dignity and discipline of the school to impart education effectively. If such acts are given the colour of an offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act, the discipline of the school would become topsy-turvy and the same would disdainfully affect the discipline and the regiment of the school. Therefore, such disciplinary measures cannot be ushered into the purview of Section 75 of the JJ Act. In such view of the matter, the case at hand would require quashment, as offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act, is not made out, prima facie.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor also though opposed quashment of the proceedings, he also conceded the fact that, in the statement o