Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, quashed an FIR against a school teacher for slapping a child who was unable to recite the alphabet ‘ABCD’, noting that a settlement was reached between the parties. 

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta held, “No purpose shall be served by keeping the proceedings pending against the petitioner, specifically in view of settlement entered into between petitioner and the complainant. The continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court”. 

A petition was filed by a teacher seeking to quash an FIR filed under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 

Per the prosecution’s case, the FIR was registered on February 27, 2015, based on a complaint by 'S', the mother of minor child 'X', aged about three and a half years. She alleged that upon returning from School, minor child 'X' had injury marks on his face. Upon inquiry, the child informed that he was slapped by the teacher on his face for being unable to recite the alphabet 'ABCD'. 

Advocates Tanya Kahturia and Raj Kumar, representing the teacher, notified the court that the matter was amicably settled between the parties in terms of a Settlement Deed dated March 16, 2024. It was further pointed out that there was no intention on the part of the teacher to inflict any harm or injury to 'X', and no significant injury marks were recorded in the Medical Legal Case (MLC), except for a bruise observed on the left cheek and right cheek. The nature of the injury was recorded as simple.

Advocate Saksham Kathuria, representing the mother of the minor child, also informed the court that the matter was amicably settled and stated that the FIR was lodged based on the information provided by the child.

Additional Public Prosecutor Kiran Bairwa, representing the state, submitted that given the amicable settlement between the parties, she had no objection to the quashing of the FIR in question.

The court first examined Section 17 of the Right to Education Act, 2009, which imposed an absolute bar on corporal punishment and mental harassment of a child in both Government and Private schools for disciplining children. 

Furthermore, the court reiterated the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which provided for “appropriate measures need to be taken to ensure that school discipline should be administered in a manner consistent with the child dignity and no child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. 

Additionally, the court placed reliance on the provisions under the Juvenile Justice Act and underscored the importance of upholding the dignity and rights of the child. Section 23 of the JJ Act, 2000, provided for punishment if a person having actual charge of or control over a juvenile or child assaulted, abandoned, exposed, or willfully neglected the juvenile or caused or procured them to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed, or neglected in a manner likely to cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering.

The court after examining the chargesheet noted that the statement of the child was not recorded until the filing of the chargesheet. The court noted that “The investigating agency never took the aid of a child psychologist/counsellor for the purpose of even ascertaining, if the child aged about three and a half years was in a position to correctly disclose the reason for a bruise on his face”. The court noted that the chargesheet was recorded merely on the statement of the mother of the child. 

The court additionally observed a lack of “motive on part of petitioner to cause any hurt and she categorically denied any such incident”. The court further noted that the Metropolitan Magistrate had directed to record the statement of the child without realizing the value of such a delayed statement after a gap of 5 years.

Therefore, noting the settlement between the parties, the court deemed it appropriate to quash the proceedings against the teacher. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the FIR was quashed. 

Case Title: Suman Vijay v State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr (2024:DHC:5226)