In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed nine years ago against a teacher accused of slapping a three-and-a-half-year-old student who was unable to recite the alphabet. Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta delivered the judgment, citing an amicable settlement between the parties and the lack of purpose in continuing the proceedings.
Case Background
The case originated on February 27, 2015, when an FIR (No. 0244/2015) was registered at Madhu Vihar Police Station under Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, with Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) later added. The complaint was filed by the mother of the child, identified as ‘S’, who alleged that her son ‘X’ returned from Step Forward School in West Vinod Nagar with injury marks on his face. According to the child, the teacher, Suman Vijay, had slapped him for failing to recite the alphabet.
Legal Proceedings and Investigation
The case took an unusual turn when the child’s statement was not recorded until five years after the incident. Justice Mendiratta criticized this delay, noting:
“Surprisingly, learned MM after filing of Chargesheet, vide order dated 09.01.2020 directed to record the statement of the victim in respect of an incident dated 27.02.2015 without even realising the value of such a delayed statement, after a gap of 5 years.”
The court also pointed out that the investigating agency did not seek the assistance of a child psychologist or counselor to determine if a child of that age could accurately recall and describe the incident.
Medical Examination and Charges
The medical examination of the child recorded simple bruises on both cheeks. The chargesheet was filed based on the mother’s statement and this medical report. However, the court observed that there appeared to be no motive on the part of the teacher to cause harm, and she had denied any such incident.
Settlement and Court’s Decision
On March 16, 2024, the parties reached an amicable settlement. Both the petitioner (teacher) and the respondent (child’s mother) confirmed this settlement in court, stating it was made without any coercion or pressure.
Justice Mendiratta emphasized the importance of considering the nature and gravity of the offense when deciding to quash an FIR. He stated:
“The High Court is not foreclosed from examining as to whether there exists material for incorporation of such an offence or as to whether there is sufficient evidence which if proved would lead to proving the charge for the offence charged with.”
The court concluded that continuing the proceedings would serve no purpose and would be an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the FIR and all related proceedings were quashed.
Also Read
Broader Implications
While dismissing the case, the court also addressed the broader issue of corporal punishment in schools. Justice Mendiratta noted:
“Section 17 of the Right to Education Act, 2009, imposes an absolute bar on corporal punishment and mental harassment to a child… The corporal punishment to a child in any form is deprecable.”
