The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a Parwanoo school principal, observing that the absence of clinical signs of trauma in a psychologist's report is not sufficient to end criminal proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act.
While rejecting the plea filed by I-Genius School principal Vibha Bansal, Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that publicly branding a child as a "thief" and threatening him with imprisonment could amount to mental suffering at the prima facie stage.
The judge said that accusing a child of theft in front of classmates and warning him that he could be jailed for life would naturally cause emotional distress. Therefore, the FIR could not be quashed simply because a clinical psychologist did not find signs of trauma. The order was passed on June 17, and a copy of the judgment has now been made public.
Bansal had approached the High Court seeking to quash an FIR registered at Parwanoo Police Station in 2022 under Sections 336, 337 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
The case stems from an incident on November 23, 2022, when a Class VII student was injured while taking part in a race organised during the school's games period.
According to the student's parents, the race was conducted without proper safety measures. They alleged that a wall was located too close to the finish line, leaving children with little space to slow down. Their son reportedly crashed into the wall and suffered injuries.
The parents also claimed that when they raised the issue with the school, the principal verbally abused them, threatened to expel their son and got into a scuffle with the complainant. They further alleged that after the incident, the child was humiliated and treated differently in school.
According to the complaint, the student was stopped from attending the school assembly, dance classes and sports activities. He was also made to sit separately from the rest of the class.
The complaint states that on December 1, 2022, the principal gathered students, played CCTV footage showing the child taking a notebook from another student's school bag and publicly labelled him a "thief". She allegedly asked other students to stay away from him, warned him that the police could send him to jail for life, questioned his upbringing, advised him to change schools and later removed him from the class WhatsApp group.
Following the complaint, the Child Welfare Committee referred the student for counselling. Before the High Court, Bansal argued that the allegations against her were false and made with malicious intent.
She relied on a probe by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, which, according to her, found no evidence of corporal punishment. She also cited a clinical psychologist's report stating that the child appeared calm, friendly and comfortable, with no signs of mental illness or psychological trauma.
Bansal argued that she had shown the CCTV footage only to teach students not to touch other people's belongings. She also maintained that the school had proper infrastructure and safety arrangements, and that no offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act had been committed.
Rejecting her plea, the High Court said the psychologist's report did not conclusively rule out mental suffering. It observed that the prosecution would have the opportunity to prove its case during the trial.
The court also reiterated that while exercising its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings, it cannot conduct a "mini-trial" or examine the reliability of the evidence at the preliminary stage.
Finding that the FIR and the material collected during the investigation disclosed cognisable offences that require judicial examination, the High Court dismissed the petition and allowed the criminAlso read: VB-G RAM G scheme not in state's interest: Sukhual proceedings against the principal to continue before the trial court.
Follow us
