Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) [India], July 9 : The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against the principal of a private school in Parwanoo, holding that the absence of clinical signs of trauma in a psychologist's report cannot be a ground to terminate criminal proceedings under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while dismissing the petition filed by Vibha Bansal, principal of I-Genius School, observed that publicly branding a child as a "thief" and threatening him with imprisonment would, at the prima facie stage, amount to causing mental suffering.
"A teacher calling a child a thief in the presence of the classmates and threatening to put him behind bars for life would, prima facie, cause mental suffering to him. Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that the clinical psychologist had not found any signs of trauma," the Court observed.
The order was passed on June 17, while a copy of the judgment has now been made available.
Bansal had approached the High Court seeking quashing of an FIR registered in 2022 at Parwanoo Police Station under Sections 336, 337 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
The case originated from an incident on November 23, 2022, when a Class VII student sustained injuries while participating in a race organised during the school's games period.
According to the complaint filed by the student's parents, the race was conducted without adequate safety arrangements, alleging that a wall was situated close to the finish line, leaving children running at full speed with insufficient distance to stop safely. The child reportedly collided with the wall and suffered injuries.
The parents further alleged that when they approached the school authorities regarding the incident, the principal verbally abused them, threatened to expel their son from the school and was involved in a scuffle with the complainant.
The complaint also alleged that following the incident, the student was subjected to humiliation and discrimination within the school.
According to the allegations, he was prevented from participating in the school assembly, dance classes and sports activities and was made to sit separately from his classmates.
On December 1, 2022, the principal allegedly assembled the students, displayed CCTV footage showing the child taking a notebook from another student's school bag and publicly declared him to be a "thief." She allegedly warned other students to stay away from him, told the child that the police could send him to jail for life, questioned whether his parents had taught him to steal, advised him to change schools and later removed him from the class WhatsApp group.
Following the complaint, the Child Welfare Committee referred the child for counselling. Before the High Court, Bansal contended that the allegations were false and malicious.
She relied on an inquiry conducted by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, which, according to her, found no evidence of corporal punishment. She also referred to the report of a clinical psychologist, which recorded that the child appeared calm, comfortable and friendly, with no signs of mental illness or psychological trauma.
The petitioner argued that she had merely shown the CCTV footage to counsel students against touching the belongings of others and maintained that the school had adequate infrastructure and safety arrangements. She further contended that no offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act was made out.
Rejecting the petition, the High Court held that the psychologist's observations did not conclusively rule out mental suffering and that the prosecution would have the opportunity to establish its case during trial.
The Court also reiterated the settled legal principle that while exercising inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, it cannot conduct a "mini-trial" or assess the reliability of the evidence at the preliminary stage.
Holding that the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during the investigation disclosed cognizable offences requiring judicial examination, the High Court dismissed the petition and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court.