The definition of 'Child Care Institution' in the JJ Act excludes schools, thus corporal punishment in educational settings under certain conditions does not constitute an offence under IPC or JJ Act.

ORDER

Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2024

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of Annexure C Final Report in Crime No.690/2018 of Kodanadu Police Station, which is now pending as C.C. No.602/2018 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Perumbavoor against him.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defacto complainant.

3. The sum and substance of the prosecution allegation is that the victim aged 13 years, who was studying in 8^th Standard was beaten by the accused, when she secured less marks in a test paper conducted by the accused, who is the English Teacher and the Principal of St.Joseph School, Thottuva, where the minor girl was studying. Recording the statement of the victim, crime was registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 82 of Juvenile Justice Act ('JJ Act' for short, hereinafter).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the offence under Section 82 of the JJ Act would not attract in the present case, since Section 82 deals with corporal punishment imposed by any person in-charge of or employed in a child care institution, who subjects a child to corporal punishment with the aim of disciplining the child.

5. According to the learned counsel, as per the definition provided under Section 2 (21) of the JJ Act, Child Care Institution is defined as “ Children's Home, Open Shelter, Observation Home, Special Home, Place of Safety, Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA) and a Fit Facility recognised under this Act for providing care and protection to children, who are in need of such services” and the same would not include school apart from the institutions specifically referred in the Section. Therefore, offence under Section 82 of the JJ Act would not attract.

6. When the learned counsel is asked why Section 75 of the JJ Act would not attract, he submitted that imposing some lesser punishment as part of discipline acting on the implied authority given by the parents to guide the student with bonafide intention would not constitute an offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act. Be it so, no offence under Section 324 of IPC also would attract. He has placed decisions of this Court reported inK.A. Abdul Vahid v. State of Kerala [2005 (2) KLT 72] and Rajan @ Raju, S/o.Choyi v. The Sub Inspector of Police , Feroke Police Station and others [2019 (1) KLT 119] in support of this contention.

7. In K.A. Abdul Vahid's case (supra), this Court in paragraph No.8 observed that when a child is sent to Madrassa or a school, the parents of the said child give an implied authority to the master or the class teacher or Headmaster/Headmistress to enforce discipline and correct the students who commit errors in front of him or her or in the classes. If a corporal punishment is given by any of them, in the process of maintaining such discipline, and also to make him/her adhere to the prescribed standards of the school, which are necessary for the upliftment and development of the child, including the development of his character and conduct in and outside the school, so that he is trained to be aware of the good qualities of a citizen, it cannot be said to be an act intended to injure the student. In such a situation, if no intentional injury is caused, considering the age of the student, it cannot be said that the said school teacher has inflicted injury to harm him. But again, the act of the teacher on the student, in imposing corporal