The conduct of reprimanding a child did not constitute cruelty under the Juvenile Justice Act.

ORDER

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the sole accused in C.P No. 19 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva arising out of Crime No. 901 of 2018 of Aluva East Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act).

2. The prosecution case is the that when the son of the defacto complainant, who was studying in St. Francis Assisi Senior Secondary School, Asokapuram, the accused who was the principal of the said school, asked him why he came to the school on that day. When he replied that he had come along with his father to attend flag hosting, he allegedly told the child that if he comes again along with his father, it will be dangeruous to him.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the above allegations raised against the petitoner do not constitute an offence punishable under Section 75 of the JJ Act. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Section 75 of the JJ Act 2015, reads as follows :

“ 75. Punishment for cruelty to child.—Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both:

Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not wilful and the penal provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases:

Provided further that if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organisation, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to five years, and fine which may extend up to five lakhs rupees:

Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakhs rupees.”

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, whenever the students were required to attend the school, parents will be intimated through the diary maintained by the child. On that particular day, there was no such instruction and in spite of that, the child came to the school along with his parent and that is why such a comment was made by the petitoner in his capacity as the principle of the school.

8. As per the statement of the child, itself it is revealed that whenever the students were required to attend the school, a message will be send to the parents through the diary or by SMS. It appears that on the stipulated day, the defacto complainant, along with child, went to the school without any such intimation and at that time the petitioner only reprimanded the child. Though the conduct of the petitioner in reprimanding the child, when the child along with his parent reached the school to attend the flag hosting ceremony is not justified the same does not constitute an offence under Section 75 of the JJ Act.

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.P No. 19 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva, is quashed.

Sd/-