New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) against a teacher for allegedly slapping a three and a half years old minor for failing to recite the letters A, B, C, D nine years ago after the parties reached a settlement.
Settlement shall promote harmony between parties and permit them to move forward in life: High Court
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, while ordering the quashing of the FIR, said that the petitioner and the mother of the child intend to put quietus to the proceedings arising out over a minor issue which are pending for a period of nine years and the settlement shall promote harmony between the parties and permit them to move forward in life.
“Also the chances of conviction are bleak in view of amicable settlement between the parties. Further, no past involvement of the petitioner has been brought to the notice of this Court,”, the High Court noted and added, “In the facts and circumstances, 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.”
An FIR was registered into the matter in February 2015
An FIR was registered on February 27, 2015 on complaint of the mother of minor child, who alleged that the minor had some injury marks on his face on return from school and on enquiry, the minor child informed that since he was unable to recite ‘ABCD’, he was slapped by the petitioner teacher on his face. The FIR was registered under section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act Act after getting the child medically examined.
The High Court noted in MLC against history, Doctor had recorded assault, bruise over left cheek and right cheek, however, the bottom line remains that the statement of the victim was not recorded till the filing of chargesheet and 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 High Court further said that the Chargesheet merely proceeded on the statement of mother of the minor on assumption.
“Apparently, there was no motive on part of petitioner to cause any hurt and she categorically denied any such incident. 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 High Court said.
Right to Education Act imposes an absolute bar on corporal punishment, High Court noted
Referring to the provisions of the Right to Education Act, the High Court said that it imposes an absolute bar on corporal punishment and mental harassment to a child, which may take place in government or private schools for disciplining children and the corporal punishment to a child in any form is deprecable, even though the motive may be to make a child realise that his/her act is unacceptable, wrong or disappointing.
The High Court further said that Provisions under Juvenile Justice Act also underscore the importance to uphold the dignity and rights of the child and United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child also provides that 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.
