The Himachal Pradesh high court has refused to quash an FIR against a school principal accused of calling a student a thief in front of his classmates, ruling that a psychologist’s report finding no signs of trauma in the child was not enough to halt criminal proceedings against her.What was the issueThe case relates to an incident involving a Class 7 student. In November 2022, the student got injured while participating in a race during a games period at school. When his parents went to question the school’s principal about the incident, she allegedly abused them and threatened to have the child removed from the school, as per the court order.Days later, the principal gathered the students and showed them CCTV footage of the boy taking a notebook from a classmate’s bag. She allegedly called him a thief in front of the class, told him the police would “send him to jail for the rest of his life,” asked whether his parents had taught him to steal, and told him to change schools. He was also removed from the class WhatsApp group.The matter was reported to the police, who registered an FIR under Sections 336, 337 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — a provision that penalises anyone in charge of a child who causes them unnecessary mental or physical suffering. A charge sheet was later filed.The principal then approached the high court seeking to quash the FIR, arguing that a clinical psychologist who examined the student had found him to be calm, comfortable and friendly, with no significant signs of mental illness — which, she argued, showed the allegations of trauma were false.What did the court sayJustice Rakesh Kainthla dismissed the plea. He said whether the child actually suffered mental trauma is something that needs to be proven with evidence during the trial — it’s not something the court can decide right now, at the stage of deciding whether to quash the FIR. At this point, the court said, it only needs to check whether the allegations, if true, amount to a crime.On the psychologist’s report, the court said the prosecution can still prove during the trial that the child suffered mentally because of what the principal did. It added that even looking at it plainly, a teacher calling a child a thief in front of his classmates, and threatening to have him jailed for life, would clearly be enough to cause the child mental suffering.“In the present case, the petitioner was the principal of the school and had an overall charge of [the child]. She had shown the CCTV footage to the children and called [him] a thief in the presence of his classmates. She threatened to call the police and put [him] behind bars. She also threatened [him] to seek a transfer from the school. All these acts would prima facie cause mental suffering to the child,” the court held.The report by the Deputy Director of Elementary Education showed no corporal punishment was used, and that the child’s father had behaved badly.“This report will not help the petitioner because nobody stated that the child was subjected to corporal punishment. Hence, the report that no corporal punishment was inflicted upon the child will not disprove the prosecution’s case,” the court further held.Referring to past Supreme Court rulings, the court said it cannot hold a “mini-trial” to test whether the allegations are true at this stage. If there’s enough material to proceed against the accused, the court should not use its power to quash the case. Since the allegations did point to a criminal offence, the court dismissed the petition and let the trial continue.
