ORDER

This petition, seeking to quash Annexure I charge-sheet, is filed by a teacher who stands implicated as an accused in Crime No.19 of 2016 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station registered under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000). The said crime was registered on a complaint that the third respondent, a minor represented in these proceedings by his mother, was beaten with a stick by the petitioner on both his hands for speaking a lie that his mathematics notebook had been lost. It is on the said basis that the crime was registered and the charge-sheet filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara numbered as CC No.1353 of 2016. On the ground that, no offence is made out, this petition is filed for quashing the final report and the further proceedings.

2. Though the third respondent was served, there is no appearance.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. In this case the petitioner, the class teacher admits that on

8.12.2015, she gave a mild punishment with a small stick for speaking a lie and was done in the best interest of the student and to correct the child for the mistake committed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are false and the petitioner, the class teacher was only exercising her responsibility as a teacher in good faith by admonishing the student for speaking a lie. There was no criminal intimidation or overt acts on her part as alleged and that the complaint was filed almost one month after the occurence date of occurrence.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the statement of witnesses would show that the child was beaten with a stick and was continuously beaten till the stick broke and thus the teacher had exceeded in giving the punishment. 7. The decisions of this Court on the issue in question are as follows:-

In Abdul Vaheed v. State of Kerala (2005 KHC 535), it was held that when a student do not behave properly or act according to the Rules of a school, and if the teacher chastises him, on a bona fide intention, by giving him a corporal punishment for improving his character and conduct, the Court has to ascertain whether the said act of the teacher was bona fide or not. If it is found that he had acted with a good intention, only to improve the student, it may not normally be brought under the penal provisions of the Code. Again in Nirmala K. v. State of Kerala and Another [2019(5)KHC 912], It was held that in view of the well settled common law position an school teacher, who is having disciplinary control over a pupil, which is for his or her own betterment and future welfare, has thus intrinsic and inherent power to enforce discipline to shape up the character and ordinary growth of the pupil and so long as the process of penal measure like caning the student is proportionate and reasonable, as is understood in the common state of affairs and the same cannot be said to be an offence. This Court relied on the decision in Rajan @ Raju v. Sub Inspector of Police, Feroke Police Station and Others [2018(5) KHC 967], wherein it was laid down that to bring home an offence under Section 323 of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the victim suffered from bodily pain, disease or infirmity, that the accused caused the aforesaid bodily pain and that the accused did so intentionally or with knowledge that in the process hurt would be caused. Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, will be attracted when unnecessary mental or physical suffering is caused by a person in charge or of control over the child by assaulting, abandoning, exposing or wilfully neglecting the child or by causing such act to be done. The courts have also taken the view that it can be assumed that when a parent entrusts a child to a teacher, he on his behalf impliedly consents for the teach