JJ Act | FIR Against School Principal For Calling Student 'Thief' Can't Be Quashed Merely Due To Absence Of Trauma In Child: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the absence of clinical signs of trauma in a psychologist's report is not a ground to quash an FIR under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Whether the child actually suffered mental trauma is a matter of evidence to be determined during trial, and the allegations themselves, if accepted at face value, were sufficient to disclose a prima...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that the absence of clinical signs of trauma in a psychologist's report is not a ground to quash an FIR under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Whether the child actually suffered mental trauma is a matter of evidence to be determined during trial, and the allegations themselves, if accepted at face value, were sufficient to disclose a prima facie offence.
The court was considering the plea of a school principal who had allegedly publicly called the child a thief before classmates and threatened him with imprisonment.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: "The absence of clinical evidence of trauma does not justify quashing the FIR. The prosecution can establish the child's mental suffering during trial through evidence. Prima facie, publicly calling a child a thief before classmates and threatening him with imprisonment is conduct likely to cause mental suffering. Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed merely because the clinical psychologist found no signs of trauma."
Background:
The case arose from an FIR lodged by the father of a Class VII student of I-Genius School, Parwanoo, alleging that his son sustained injuries during a race organised by the school's PT teacher due to inadequate safety arrangements. He further alleged that when he questioned the school authorities, the principal abused and threatened the family. Subsequently, the principal allegedly displayed CCTV footage before the student's classmates, accused him of theft for taking a classmate's notebook, threatened that he could be sent to jail for life, questioned his upbringing, and asked him to change schools.
It was also alleged that the child was isolated from school activities and removed from the class WhatsApp group. An FIR was registered under Sections 336, 337 and 504 of the IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the filing of the charge sheet, the principal approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that the allegations did not disclose any offence.
Rejecting the contention that the petitioner, as the school principal, did not have actual charge or control over the child, the Court held that a principal exercises overall control over students. It observed that the allegations of publicly branding the child a thief, threatening him with police action and asking him to leave the school were, prima facie, capable of causing unnecessary mental suffering within the meaning of Section 75.
The Court rejected the argument that the psychologist's report, which found the child to be calm and friendly, disproved the prosecution's case. It held that the child's mental suffering could still be proved during trial through evidence and that the alleged conduct was, objectively, capable of causing mental trauma.
The Court further held that the report of the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, which concluded that no corporal punishment had been inflicted, did not undermine the prosecution case because the allegations related to public humiliation and mental suffering rather than corporal punishment.
Emphasising the limited scope of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the Court held that it could not examine the truthfulness of the allegations or weigh the defence put forth by the petitioner at the quashing stage.
Concluding that the FIR and the material collected during investigation disclosed cognisable offences, the Court held that the trial court should be allowed to examine the evidence and determine the merits of the case.
Case Name: Vibha Bansal v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Case No.: Cr. MMO No. 175 of 2026
Decision Date: 17.06.2026