Disciplinary actions taken by teachers intending to correct behavior, without malicious intent, do not constitute criminal offenses under IPC or JJ Act.

O R D E R This Crl.M.C has been filed by the sole accused in CC No.

2/2020 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Kothamangalam (for short, the trial court) under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash Annexure B final report and all further proceedings in CC No.2/2020.

2. The petitioner was the Headmaster at Government Higher Secondary School, Nellikkuzhy, Kothamangalam, Ernakulam. The 2^nd and 3^rd respondents were 8th-grade students at the said school. The prosecution case in short is that on 20/11/2019, at about 9.50 a.m., the petitioner wrongfully restrained and voluntarily caused simple hurt to the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents as they were late to report at yoga class and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), Act, 2015 (for short, 'the JJ Act').

3. I have heard Smt.Leena C., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Sangeetha Raj N.R., the learned Public Prosecutor and Smt.Marian G.M.Tharakan, the learned counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if all the allegations in Annexure B final report are believed in its entirety, no offences under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC and Section 75 of the JJ Act are attracted. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that prima facie the ingredients of the above offences are made out and hence the jurisdiction vested with this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot be invoked.

5. A reading of the final report would show that class in the school starts at 10.00 a.m. Every Wednesday, there is a yoga class from 9.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. The prosecution alleges that on the date of the incident, when the petitioner saw that the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents came late for yoga class, he wrongfully restrained them, caught hold of their ears and beat them with his hand. The petitioner fairly conceded that he caught hold of the ears of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. According to him, the said act was not an intentional act to cause hurt to them, but only to discipline them. The version of the petitioner is that normally the yoga class would end by 9.50 a.m. and the school starts at 10.00 am. On the alleged date of the incident, the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents reached the school at around 9.45 a.m. The petitioner who was standing in front of the office room, told them to go to the classroom as the yoga class was about to be disbursed, and their entry at the last minute would serve no purpose, but would only disrupt the entire class. They went to the classroom, came back and walked towards the yoga class, and it was then he stopped them from proceeding in that direction and asked them to go back to the classroom, as it was almost 10.00 a.m, by catching hold of their ears. The said version of the petitioner appears to be probable and correct in the light of the statement of the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents.

6. In the statement, the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents admitted that they reached school, kept their bags in the classroom and thereafter proceeded to the yoga class. At that time, the petitioner stopped them and sent them back to the class. After a short while, they again proceeded to the yoga class. Then again, the petitioner stopped them, caught hold of their ears and beat them with his hand. Thus, it is evident that against the specific direction of the petitioner, the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents went to the class and again proceeded towards the yoga cl