No substantial basis for the alleged offences; teachers' actions aimed at educational discipline do not constitute cruelty.

O R D E R Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2026 The accused persons 1 and 2 in CC No.186/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode, arising out of Crime No.252/2018 of Beypore Police Station, filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for quashing all further proceedings against them. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 324 of IPC and Sections 75 and

85 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act ('JJ Act' for short). 2. The prosecution case is that on 22.9.2018, while the defacto complainant was studying in 10^th standard at Beypore GHSS, the 1^st accused, who was his Chemistry teacher, beat him with a stick and on the same day, the 2^nd accused, who was his class teacher, went to his residence and discussed about the details of his study and thereby mentally harassed him.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, even if the entire allegations levelled against the petitioners as such is believed, the same will not constitute the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and Sections 75 and 85 of the JJ Act. Therefore, he prayed for quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The Petition was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant as well as by the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent also relied upon the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Sister Mercy@ Elizabeth Jose (Devasiya) v. State of Chhattisgarh in CRMP. No.1995 of 2024, in support of his argument that subjecting the child to corporal punishment for reforming him cannot be part of education. Further according to the learned counsel for 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant, the defacto complainant is a person suffering from 50% disability.

6. However, it is to be noted that no such disability certificate is produced in this case. On the other hand, from the FI statement, it can be seen that the defacto complainant himself claimed that he used to go to the school by riding a bicycle and as such the claim of the 2^nd respondent that he is a person suffering from 50% disability cannot be believed.

7. As per the FI statement, the 1^st accused, who was the Chemistry teacher, asked the defacto complainant why he had not completed the Chemistry note book and beat him with a stick on his leg. He further states in the FIS that he has no grievance in the conduct of the 1^st accused in beating him with a stick. However, his main grievance is that on the same day during the evening, the 2^nd accused, who was his class teacher went to his residence and told his mother that since he is studying in 10^th standard, they will have to compel him to study. In the FI statement, he states that the above message given by his class teacher to his mother, caused mental strain harassment to him. Therefore, after the above incident he never went to the school.

8. It is true that from Annexure R3(a), it is revealed that on 25.9.2018 the defacto complainant was taken to a doctor with a complaint of depression. From Annexure R3(b) and R3(c) it can be seen that he was taken to the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Medical College, Kozhikode on

5.12.2018 and thereafter he was very weak in his studies.

9. Since it is revealed that the 1^st accused only beat him once on his leg using a stick for not completing the Chemistry note book and the defacto complainant stated that he has no grievance in that respect the above conduct of the 1^st accused cannot be treated as serious one. Moreover, a stick allegedly used by the 1^st accused to beat the defacto complainant can