HC quashes FIR against teacher for allegedly slapping toddler for failing to recite ABCD

“Also, the chances of conviction are bleak in view of an amicable settlement between the parties. Further, no past involvement of the petitioner (teacher) has been brought to the notice of this court,” Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said, adding that continuing with the proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court.

An FIR was registered in 2015 on a complaint from the child’s mother, alleging that when her son returned from school, he had injury marks on his face. The child informed his mother that as he was unable to recite A, B, C, D, he was slapped by the teacher.

The court noted that the child’s statement was not recorded till police filed a chargesheet and the investigating agency never took the aid of a child psychologist or counsellor for the purpose of even ascertaining whether the three-and-a-half-year-old boy was in a position to correctly disclose the reason for a bruise on his face.

It noted that the chargesheet merely proceeded on the statement of the child’s mother on assumption.

“Apparently, there was no motive on the part of the petitioner to cause any hurt and she categorically denied any such incident. Surprisingly, the metropolitan magistrate, after the filing of the chargesheet, vide order dated January 9, 2020, directed to record the statement of the victim in respect of an incident dated February 27, 2015, without even realising the value of such a delayed statement after a gap of five years,” the court said.

It referred to a provision of the Right to Education Act that imposes an absolute bar on corporal punishment and mental harassment to a child that may take place in government or private schools for disciplining children.

The provision states that corporal punishment to a child in any form is deplorable, even though the motive may be to make the child realise that his act is unacceptable, wrong or disappointing.

Provisions under the Juvenile Justice Act also underscore the importance to uphold the dignity and rights of a child, the court noted.