Insufficient evidence was found to support charges under the Juvenile Justice Act against the petitioner as she was not in actual control of the children and her actions did not constitute abuse.

ORDER :

1. The second accused in C.C No.196/2023 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against her in the above case. The case relates to the commission of offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that she, while working as the caretaker of Children’s Home at Manganamkudy, behaved in such a manner causing mental pain to the inmates of that children’s home. It is alleged that when the first informant child and other inmates asked the petitioner about their study matters, she responded that it would be looked into later on. Another allegation is that the petitioner scolded the first informant child and other inmates when they complained about the acts of another child assaulting certain other inmates of that children’s home. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioner, along with accused Nos 1 and 3, committed offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

4. To attract the offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act, it has to be shown that the offender who was having the actual charge of or control over the child, had assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or wilfully neglected the child or caused or procured the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering. Thus the first requirement to be fulfilled for invoking the above penal provision is that the offender should be in actual charge of or control over the child who is the victim of the offence. The second requirement to be fulfilled for invoking the above penal provision is that there should be material to show that the offender had assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or wilfully neglected the child resulting in mental or physical suffering to that child. As far as the present case is concerned, the prosecution materials do not reveal that the petitioner herein, who is the caretaker of that children's home, was in actual charge or control of the inmates of the Children’s home. On the other hand, it is stated in the FIR as well as in the final report that it was the first accused, who was in actual charge or control over the affairs of that institution. As regards the second requirement also, it is to be noted that there is no material to show that the petitioner/2^nd accused had assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or wilfully neglected any of the inmate children of that institution. The mere allegation that the second accused did not respond to the queries of the children about their study matters, cannot be taken as an act of abuse causing physical or mental suffering to the children. So also, the contention that the petitioner/second accused scolded the children when they complained about the assault of another inmate child, is too flimsy to say that the above conduct of the petitioner amounted to abuse causing mental pain and suffering to the children. In that view of the matter, it has to be concluded that the prosecution records are not sufficient to bring home the offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act as against the petitioner herein. That being so, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the proceedings against her, is well founded.

In the result, the petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner (2nd accused) in C.C.No.196/2023 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Kottayam, which arose out of Crime No.1383/2023 of Kottayam East Police Station, are hereby quashed.