HC refuses to quash FIR against Parwanoo school principal over alleged mental trauma of student
Photo used for indicative purpose only. Source internet
HC refuses to quash FIR against Parwanoo school principal over alleged mental trauma of student
Shimla, Jul 8,
Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against the principal of a private school in Parwanoo, holding that the allegations of publicly humiliating and mentally harassing a Class VII student disclose a prima facie case that requires a full-fledged trial. The court observed that at the stage of considering a petition for quashing criminal proceedings, it cannot conduct a “mini-trial” or assess the truthfulness of the allegations.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed the petition filed by Vibha Bansal, who had sought quashing of FIR No. 138 of 2022 registered at Police Station Parwanoo under Sections 336, 337 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The court held that the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclose cognisable offences and should be examined by the trial court during the course of the proceedings.
According to the complaint, the victim, Kanav, a Class VII student of I-Genius School, sustained injuries on November 23, 2022, while participating in a race organised during the games period. His parents alleged that the race had been conducted without adequate safety arrangements, claiming that a wall was located just a short distance from the finish line, making it difficult for children running at full speed to stop safely. The child reportedly crashed into the wall and suffered injuries. When his parents approached the school authorities, the principal allegedly abused them, threatened to expel the child from the school and called her husband, who allegedly had a scuffle with the complainant.
The complaint further alleged that after the incident the child was subjected to humiliation inside the school. It was alleged that he was not allowed to participate in the school assembly, dance classes and games activities and was made to sit separately in the classroom. On December 1, 2022, the principal allegedly assembled the students, displayed CCTV footage showing Kanav taking a notebook from a classmate’s bag and declared before the class that he was a thief. She allegedly warned the students to remain cautious of him, threatened that the police would send him to jail for life and questioned whether his parents had taught him to steal. The student was also allegedly asked to change his school and was removed from the class WhatsApp group. Following the complaint, the Child Welfare Committee referred the child for counselling.
The petitioner contended before the High Court that the allegations were false and that an inquiry conducted by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education had found no instance of corporal punishment. She also relied on the report of a clinical psychologist, who found no signs of mental illness or trauma in the child, and argued that she had merely shown the CCTV footage to advise students not to touch one another’s belongings. She maintained that the school had adequate facilities and that no offence under the Juvenile Justice Act was made out.
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court observed that even if the psychologist did not find evidence of lasting trauma, the prosecution could still establish mental suffering during trial. The court noted that calling a child a thief in the presence of classmates, threatening to have him jailed and asking him to leave the school would, on the face of it, be capable of causing mental suffering to a child. It also held that the report of the Deputy Director regarding corporal punishment did not negate the allegations of mental harassment made in the FIR.
Referring to a series of Supreme Court judgments governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, Justice Kainthla reiterated that the High Court cannot weigh evidence or determine the credibility of allegations while deciding a petition for quashing. Since the investigation had resulted in the filing of a charge sheet and the allegations disclosed a prima facie case, the trial court should be allowed to proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, while clarifying that the observations made in the order would not influence the merits of the trial.
About the Author
