A teacher's reasonable use of disciplinary measures like caning a student does not amount to an offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, as long as the punishment is proportionate and does not cause extreme harm.

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.295 of 2016 of Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode district. The said crime was registered alleging the commission of offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'JJ Act'). Following investigation, a final report has been laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- IV, Kozhikode, which has been taken on file as C.C.No.445/2017 alleging the commission of offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the final report in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner was the Vice-Principal of the Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, East Hill, Kozhikode. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had more than 28 years of total service in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, out of which, 16 years was in the Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, East Hill, Kozhikode. The 2nd respondent, who is the de facto complainant, is the father of one Neel Sagar, who was a student of class VIII in Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1, East Hill, Kozhikkode, in the year 2016. On 29-02- 2016, the petitioner, who was the Vice-Principal, along with two members of the disciplinary committee of the school, went to class VIII for random checking of bags of students. According to the petitioner, the random checking was to maintain discipline in the school and to ensure that the children were not using any narcotic drugs and was essentially on the basis of instructions issued by the District Collector, Kozhikode. According to the petitioner, while conducting random checking of the bags of the students, the son of the de facto complainant/2nd respondent behaved in an unruly manner and unzipped his trousers and took out Rs.100/- and handed it over to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he had not abused or assaulted the son of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that almost ten days after the incident, the 2nd respondent filed a complaint leading to the registration of Crime No.295 of 2016 of Nadakkavu Police Station, alleging that the petitioner had assaulted his son for bringing Rs.100/- to the School, as a result of which the son of the de facto complainant suffered an injury inside his mouth. It is the case of the petitioner that it is settled law that as a teacher who has disciplinary control over the pupil, the petitioner has the intrinsic and inherent power to enforce discipline to shape up the character and ordinary growth of the pupil, and so long as the action of the petitioner is reasonable, he cannot be accused of an offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner places considerable emphasis on the judgment of this Court in Nirmala K. v. State of Kerala and Another, 2019 (5) KHC 912 as also on the judgment in Rajan v. Sub Inspector of Police ; 2019 (1) KLT 119 , in support of his contention.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has not made out any case for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised very sparingly and the facts of this case do not disclose any inherent defect in the proceedings warranting the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has referred to the statement filed in this Court as also to the documents produced along with the statement including certain portions of the final report containing the statements of witnesses and also to the medical certificate, conduct certificate issued to the son of the 2nd respondent etc., to contend that the act of the petitioner in slapping the minor son of the 2nd respondent leading to injury and loss of blood was grossly disproportionate and cannot be seen as an incident where the petitioner was enforcing discipline in the school. It is