Kerala High Court: In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) by an accused teacher facing charges under Section 324 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) for beating his students with a cane., a Single Judge Bench of C. Pratheep Kumar, J., quashed the criminal proceedings against the teacher. The Court held that the teacher had used only the minimal force necessary to maintain discipline in the classroom and had acted without any intention to cause harm. It further observed that the prosecution was initiated merely because the parents had misunderstood the teacher’s bona fide intention in correcting the students.
The prosecution case was that on 16-09-2019, at about 10:00 a.m., the victim, a 5th standard student of Mambad CAUP School, along with other classmates, was involved in a scuffle inside the classroom. The accused, who was their teacher, intervened with a cane and beat the students involved in the clash on their legs to stop the fight.
The accused contended that, as a responsible teacher, he was only performing his duty to maintain discipline and prevent the students from harming each other, and that he had no intention of causing any injury. On this basis, he sought quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
The Court referred to its earlier decision in Jomi v. State of Kerala1 wherein it was held that when there is no malafide intention on the part of a teacher in inflicting corporal punishment for the well-being of students or for maintaining discipline, Section 75 of the JJ Act would not be attracted.
The Court observed that a teacher, by virtue of his position, had the authority to enforce discipline and correct a student entrusted to his care. When a parent entrusts a child to a teacher, the parent impliedly consents to the teacher exercising reasonable authority for the student’s improvement. The Court emphasised that it must be examined whether the act of punishment was bona fide and intended for correction. If it was done in good faith for the benefit of the student, the teacher would be within his limits.
On examining the statement of the victim, the Court noted that the incident occurred during a mutual fight among students involving sticks and a plastic pipe. The teacher had caned only the three students involved, and only on their legs, to stop the violence. The incident, which occurred on 16-09-2019 at 10 a.m., was reported to the police only on 20-09-2019 at 8:27 p.m., with no explanation for the delay. The child was not medically treated, and there was no evidence of any bodily injury.
The Court held that the teacher had used only the minimal force necessary to maintain discipline and had acted without any intention to cause harm. It remarked that the prosecution arose merely because the parents had misunderstood the teacher’s bona fide intention.
“The accused has used only minimum force while caning the students. Since he had used only minimum corporal punishment, that too, only for enforcing discipline in the class, it is evident that he had no intention to cause any hurt to the students beyond what is required for enforcing the discipline in the class. Therefore, the above conduct of the accused was only for correcting the students and to make them good citizens and as such he was well within his limits.”
Finding that the teacher’s conduct did not constitute any offence under Section 324 IPC or Section 75 of the JJ Act, the Court concluded that the continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge-I , against the teacher.
[Abhuthahir v. State of Kerala, CRL.MC No. 7164 of 2024, decided on 16-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Advocate VA Johnson
For Respondent: Senior PP A. Vipin Narayan
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 HERE
1. 2024 (2) KLD 230