Justice Kumar also referred to various earlier orders of the High Court where it had held that when there is no malafide intention on the part of the teacher in inflicting corporal punishment for the well-being of the student and for maintaining discipline, it is not possible to say that an offence under the Juvenile Justice Act is made out.

The teacher had been booked for the offences under section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the IPC and section 75 (cruelty to child) of the Juvenile Justice Act.

The court further said that it was clear that the school teacher, in view of his peculiar position, has authority to enforce discipline and correct a pupil, who is put in his charge.

“When a parent entrusts a child to a teacher, he on his behalf impliedly consents for the teacher to exercise over the student such authority. When a student does not behave properly or act according to the rules of a school, and if the teacher gives 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 or correct the student, he is within his limits,” it said.

In the instant case, the court said that the teacher’s conduct does not amount to any offence, including those punishable under section 324 IPC and section 75 of the JJ Act, “and as such, the request in this petition to quash further proceedings against the petitioner is well founded.”

“In the result, this Crl. MC is allowed. All further proceedings in CC. No. 577/2023 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-I (Special Court), Palakkad, arising from Crime No. 585 of 2019 of Vadakkencherry Police Station, is quashed,” the court said.