IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Jayasree Asokan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. M.C No. 1044 of 2023
Decided on : 23-07-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Allegations of offences under IPC and JJ Act - Accused, a Principal and Vice Principal, allegedly slapped a student for indiscipline - No external injuries noted - Court held that overt acts did not attract serious offences - Reference made to Jomi v. State of Kerala and Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan - Petition allowed, proceedings quashed. (Paras 6, 9, 10)
(B) Disciplinary measures by teachers - Court emphasized that reprimanding students for indiscipline does not amount to criminal acts unless serious injuries are inflicted. (Paras 7, 8)
ORDER :
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash all further proceedings in Crime No.33/2023 of Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the above crime.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant documents.
3. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 506(1) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'JJ Act', for short) and the allegation is that the first accused, who is the Principle of Sree Gokulam Public School, Chittattukara, and the 2nd accused, who is the Vice Principal of the said school, slapped on the cheek of the victim, a student of the school, and some of his friends, on the allegations that they sang inside the class.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed quashment of the proceedings and he has placed judgment of this Court in Jomi v. State of Kerala and Others, reported in 2024 (4) KLT 297 and also placed another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another, reported in 2021 KHC 6593.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no external injuries are noted in so far as the victim is concerned, and therefore, the overt acts would not come within the purview of onerous punishment so as to attract the offences alleged to be committed by the accused.
6. Whereas the learned counsel for the defacto complainant/4th respondent zealously opposed the contention, on the submission that on reading the statements of the victim under Sections 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C. along with the medical certificate, the overt acts would squarely attract prima facie since because of the overt acts, the victim was subjected to severe mental and physical cruelty. He also placed a judgment of the Madras High Court in Crl.O.P. No.23120/2019 dated 04.03.2021 (S.Jai Singh and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another), holding contra view as stated in Jomi' s case (supra). In Jomi' s case (supra), this Court in paragraph No.10 observed as under:
“10. Going by the prosecution allegations, a student studying in 8th Standard was beaten by the Principal and English Teacher of the School when she failed to secure fair marks in a test paper conducted by the Teacher. Though there is allegation of beating, no serious injuries sustained. Therefore, it has to be held that the teacher had no malafide intention while beating the accused or his intention was to guide the student by alerting her to the necessity of studying well and securing high marks in the subject. If teachers being roped into under the provisions of the JJ Act for devicing simple and least onerous corrective measures to keep the discipline of the School or the Educational Institution the discipline of the School or the Institution would be in peril. At the same time, when the teacher exceeds his authority beyond the limit and causes serious injuries or physical assault of similar nature definitely the penal provisions of JJ Act would squarely apply. Viewing so, it could not be held that the petitioner herein committed offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act”
7. In Geo Varghese’s case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the allegation of commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, while quashing the complaint, and held as under:
“27. It is a solemn duty of a teacher to instil discipline in the students. It is not uncommon that teachers reprimand a student for not being attentive or not being upto the mark in studies or for bunking classes or not attending the school. The disciplinary measures adopted by a teacher or other authorities of a school, reprimanding a student for his indiscipline, in our considered
AI
Disciplinary actions by teachers that do not result in serious injury do not constitute criminal offences under IPC or JJ Act.
Corporal punishment by a teacher may not constitute an offence if it is performed with a bona fide intention to maintain discipline, as established under relevant IPC and JJ Act provisions.
Disciplinary actions by teachers do not constitute offences under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act if not intended to cause unnecessary suffering.
Teachers can impose reasonable discipline, provided there is no malice or excessive force. Such actions fall under implied authority granted by parents.
A teacher may impose reasonable corporal punishment in good faith for discipline without constituting criminal liability.
Teachers' disciplinary actions must consider the psychological impact on students; inappropriate behavior can lead to legal consequences under abetment laws.
No substantial basis for the alleged offences; teachers' actions aimed at educational discipline do not constitute cruelty.
The central legal point established is that the actions of the accused did not constitute an offence under the Juvenile Justice Act or the Indian Penal Code due to the absence of malafide intention a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a prima facie case and the absence of malicious intention to cause hurt in the context of framing charges under S.324 IPC and S....
Point of Law : The Judge while considering question of framing charges under S.227 of Cr.P.C. has undoubted power to sift and weigh evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.