Corporal punishment by a teacher may not constitute an offence if it is performed with a bona fide intention to maintain discipline, as established under relevant IPC and JJ Act provisions.

ORDER

Dated : 9^th February, 2026 The petitioner who is the sole accused in C.C.38/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mananthavady arising out of crime No.308/2019 of Thondernadu police station, Wayanad, filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, praying for quashing all further proceedings against him.

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 324 IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)

Act, 2015 (for short, JJ Act).

3. The prosecution case is that while the daughter of the de facto complainant was studying in 10^th standard at MTDM High school Palery, the accused who was her teacher voluntarily caused hurt to her by beating her with a cane for the reason that she omitted to bring the Chemistry book. It is also alleged that because of the above incident, the daughter of the de facto complainant sustained injury and she lost classes for about 75 days, that the accused made corrections in her attendance register and refused to give admission to her for the Plus One course, as promised.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations levelled against the petitioner are believed as such, the same does not constitute the offences under Section 324 IPC and Section 75 of the JJ Act. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on the de facto complainant/additional

3^rd respondent, she did not turn up.

6. Though the alleged incident was on 30.8.2018, the FIR was registered only on 2.9.2019, more than one year after the alleged incident. In the FIR no explanation was given for the inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police.

7. As per the statement dated 'nil' given by the child, at the time of giving the above statement, she was studying in Plus One. As per the above statement, the incident was on 30.10.2018 while as per the final report, the incident was on 30.8.2018. As per the statement of the child, on one day, while she was studying in 10^th standard, she omitted to bring her Chemistry textbook and notebook and because of the above omission on her part, the accused, who was her Chemistry teacher, beat on her right palm twice using a cane. When she complained of pain, the teacher beat her twice more and as a result of which she sustained severe pain and there was swelling on her right palm. Since pain continued, on 31.10.2018 she could not attend the school. On the night of 31.10.2018 two teachers came to her residence and requested her not to skip the classes. Accordingly on 1.11.2018, she went to the school. Since there was pain in her hand, she could not write anything. On the same day, she was taken to District hospital, Mananthavady and the doctor therein advised expert treatment. Thereafter she was taken to the Co-operative hospital, Vadakara and also Aster Mims hospital, Kozhikode. She was also treated by an Ayurveda doctor Suresh Kumar. Therefore, she lost about 75 days' of classes. Though the teachers promised to give her admission for Plus Two in the management quota, it was not given. It appears that the present case was registered only after the school authorities refused to give her admission to the Plus Two course.

8. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Aneesa Beevi v. State of Kerala , 2025 Supreme (Online) (Ker) 52758 , the learned counsel would argue that when a student is sent to the school, the guardian of the student gives constructive permission to the