1 (Ms. [ENTITY] & Smt. [ENTITY] vs. State of M.P. & Ors) [CASE NUMBER] 19.01.2016 Shri [ENTITY], counsel for the applicants. Shri [ENTITY], Panel Lawyer for the respondents No. 1 to 3-State. Shri [ENTITY], counsel for the respondents No. 4&5 Heard on admission. The applicants have preferred the present petition under [SECTION] of [ACT] for quashment of FIR of crime No. 463/2015 registered at police station Kampoo Dist. Gwalior for offence under [SECTION] of [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] (herein after referred to as '[ACT]'). Facts of the case, in short, are that the applicants are
Principal and Director of Oxford Public School. In their school [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were admitted to study in class VIth. It was found that pen and watches of the students were stolen by [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. According to the applicants they contacted the parents of those children. The parents of child [ENTITY] took care on the call and thereafter they controlled their child. On the other hand, respondents No. 4 & 5 had lodged FIR at police station Kampoo, Dist.
(Ms. [ENTITY] & Smt. [ENTITY] vs. State of M.P. & Ors) Gwalior that their child [ENTITY] was scolded and assaulted by the applicants. He was in shock. Some tablets were also administered to him. He was admitted in a hospital for few days and, therefore, offence under [SECTION] of [ACT] and [SECTION] of [ACT] were reported to the police.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that grievance of the applicants that offence under [SECTION] of [ACT] is not cognizable. However, according to the provisions of [SECTION] of [ACT] such offence is cognizable.
The main contention of the applicants is that according to the provisions of [SECTION] of [ACT] offence shall be registered against the persons who are in actual charge of the children and being Principal and Teacher, the applicants were not in actual charge of the children and, therefore, no such offence is made out against the applicants. In this connection, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provision of [SECTION] of [ACT] which is as under :-
(Ms. [ENTITY] & Smt. [ENTITY] vs. State of M.P. & Ors) "23. Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child. Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or willfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both."
When a child leaves his parents and goes to school then certainly he remain in charge of class Teacher as well as Principal of the school. It cannot be said that he was not given under the control of the School authorities and, therefore, the applicants were the controller of the child when child entered in the school for his studies.
Learned counsel for the applicants has also pressed on contention that neither the child [ENTITY] was assaulted by any one nor the applicants have committed any overt act which may fall within the purview of [SECTION] of [ACT]. In this context, the medical report of the child (Ms. [ENTITY] & Smt. [ENTITY] vs. State of M.P. & Ors) given by staff of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi (Annexure P-10) is also referred.
If such report is perused then it would be apparent that the child was in shock. He was 10 years old child, but it was found that he had a history of "Bed Wetting". It is not mentioned in the report that history of bed wetting was from very beginning. That history was given when the child was admitted in hospital for treatment which indicates that he was under fear and shock. Similarly, on physical examination it was found that the child was drowsy. At the time of assault of the child he did not give any details of the incident caused with him. However, thereafter he has clearly mentioned in his statement that the applicants assaulted him by slaps, because there was an allegation against him that he had stolen pens and watches of the students. Under these circumstances, the medical history (Annexure P-10) does not give any help to the applicants. It would be apparent that there was no quarrel or enmity of the applicants with the respondents No. 4 & 5 so that they would have lodged a false FIR. Also it appears that a committee was constituted headed by the SDM concerned and Educational Officer, but the applicants did not appear (Ms. [ENTITY] & Smt. [ENTITY] vs. State of M.P. & Ors) before this committee to explain the matter. It is mentioned that Child Management officials of the School have contacted the respondent No. 5 on phone and have called her for a meeting. However, she did not turn up. No explanation has been given by the applicants as to why they did not mention anything in the dairy of the student. The applicants could send note in that diary of the student so that it could be perused by his parents. Also notice to expel the child from the school could be given by the applicants, but there is no documentary proof in this regard.
[SECTION] of the [ACT] is vast, it does not relate only for an act of assaulting but if the child is scolded in front of other children then that amount to willful negligence done by the applicants to the child and if he suffers unnecessary mental suffering then offence under [SECTION] of [ACT] shall be made out.
Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of "[PRECEDENT], "[PRECEDENT] to show that if prima (Ms. [ENTITY] & Smt. [ENTITY] vs. State of M.P. & Ors) facie no case is made out against the accused then power of this Court under [SECTION] of [ACT] be exercised in favour of the applicant.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 & 5 has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of "[PRECEDENT] in which it is mentioned that inherent powers of this Court should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare case.
In the light of aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it cannot be said that the applicants have not committed any offence as registered against them. Since the trial is to be proceeded before the trial court, hence, it is not required to write down much on the evidence collected by the prosecution. It is not the case in which inherent powers of this Court may be invoked in favour of the applicants with the pretext that they did not commit any crime. Under these circumstances, there is no substance in this petition.
(Ms. [ENTITY] & Smt. [ENTITY] vs. State of M.P. & Ors) Consequently, this petition under [SECTION] of [ACT] filed by the applicants Ms. [ENTITY] & Smt. [ENTITY] is hereby dismissed at motion stage.
The interim order dated 29/10/2015 is hereby vacated. Before concluding the order, it is made clear that the observation made in this order shall not cause any prejudice to the trial court relating to the evidence.
Copy of this order be sent to the court below for information and to proceed with the case.
Certified copy as per rules.
([ENTITY]) Judge [ENTITY]*