Teachers can impose reasonable discipline, provided there is no malice or excessive force. Such actions fall under implied authority granted by parents.

ORDER

Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2026 This is a petition filed under S.482 Cr.PC by the sole accused in C.C No. 1000 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam arising out of Crime No.111 of 2019 of Vadakkekad police station. The offences alleged against the petitoner are under Sections 341 and

323 of the IPC and Section 82 (1) of the Juvanile Justice Act.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 20.02.2019 at about

11.15 a.m., the accused who was the teacher of the defacto complainant, while the students were assembled for taking photographs, voluntarily caused hurt to the defacto complainant as he disobeyed the direction of the accused and thereby he is alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences.

3 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the students assembled for taking a group photo, the defacto complainant had shown obscene gestures and at that time he had only scolded the defacto complainant as part of enforcing discipline among the students. He would also submit that there is no merit in the allegation against the petitoner that he had voluntarily caused hurt to the defacto complainant. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitoner.

4. Though notice was served on the defacto complainant, he did not turn up.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petiton.

6. The alleged incident occurred in a school, when the students assembled for taking a group photo. In the FI statement, the defacto complainant claims that he has only placed his hand on his chest for the purpose of posing for the photo. However, from the statement given by another teacher, Anitha, it is revealed that at the time of posing for taking photograph, the defacto complainant who is a VI standard showed an obscene gesture and only at that time did the petitioner intervened.

7. It is the settled law that a teacher has the responsiblity as well as implied consent or authority to maintain disicpline among the students under his control. In the decision in Abu Tahir v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC

1093], in paragraphs 5 to 7, this Court held as follows : 5. The extent to which a teacher could lawfully inflict corporal punishment on a student under his control was dealt with by this court in some decisions. In the decision in K.A.Abdul Vahid v. State of Kerala 2005(2)KLT 72 this court held in paragraphs 3, 4 and 8 as follows:

3. The reporting of instances, similar to the facts stated above, are rare. Often, when such instances are brought to the notice of the parents or others, they are not taken-seriously, as a teacher has an implied consent or authority to maintain the school discipline and also to train a student based on the Rules of a school. When a student do not behave properly or act according to the Rules of a school, and if the teacher chastise 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.

4. Ss.88 and 89 I.P.C. are the relevant provisions to the facts of this case and hence I reproduce them below:

"88. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit:- Nothing which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to tak