Minor Issue; Pending Since 9 Years: Delhi HC Quashes FIR Against Teacher Accused Of Slapping 3.5 Year-Old Child Who Failed To Recite ‘ABCD’

The Delhi High Court has recently quashed an FIR against a teacher who was accused of slapping a three-year-old child for failing to recite the alphabet after the parties involved reached a settlement.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta quashed the FIR filed by the minor's mother in 2015, noting that the complainant and the teacher wished to resolve the matter, which stemmed from a “minor issue” and had been pending for nine years.

"Petitioner and respondent No. 2 intend to put quietus to the proceedings arising out over a minor issue and which are pending for a period of 9 years. 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 Court held.

The Bench said that no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings pending against the petitioner, specifically in view of the settlement entered into between the petitioner and the complainant. "The continuation of proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, FIR No. 0244/2015, under Sections 323/506 IPC and Section 23 of JJ Act, registered at PS: Madhu Vihar, and proceedings emanating therefrom, stand quashed. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of," the Court ordered. 

The Court stressed that corporal punishment of any form is unacceptable, even if the intention is to correct a child's behavior. It cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which mandates that school discipline must be administered in a manner consistent with a child's dignity, prohibiting torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. 

"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 Court said. 

The FIR had been registered under Section 23 (Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and Sections 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complaint alleged that the mother discovered injury marks on her child's face, who claimed that the teacher had slapped him for not reciting the alphabet.

The teacher sought to quash the FIR, asserting that the issue was resolved in March, and the mother indicated that there was no intent to harm the child. She also noted that only minor bruises were present, as indicated in the medical examination report.

On Perusal of the chargesheet, the Court noted, "FIR was registered on the complaint of ‘S’ (mother of minor child) on seeing some bruises on his face. She alleged that her son ‘X’ disclosed that his teacher (i.e. petitioner) slapped him since he failed to recite the alphabet ‘ABCD’. 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."

"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 Chargesheet merely proceeded on the statement of mother of ‘X’ on assumption," the Court further noted. 

Cause Title: Suman Vijay v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC: 5226]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Tanya Kahturia, Raj Kumar

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Kiran Bairwa, Advocate Saksham Kathuria

Click here to read/download the Judgment