JJ Act | Telangana High Court Quashes Cruelty Case Against School Coordinator Accused Of Denying Water, Washroom To Child Over Unpaid Fees

The Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a primary school coordinator, who was accused of ill-treating a 5-year-old UKG student by keeping the child outside the classroom, and subsequently denying drinking water and access to the washroom.

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the co-ordinator had 'actual charge of' or 'control over' the child as required under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, when the alleged incident over the non-payment of school fees occurred. It noted that the petitioner was a coordinator and not the teacher.

Section 75 states that whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned, abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine of 1 Lakh or both. 

The single judge bench of Justice Juvvadi Sridevi allowed the plea, seeking to quash proceedings before a trial court at Medchal-Malkajgiri.

While passing the order, the court iterated that Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act requires proof that the accused had actual charge of, or control over, the child.

“….The main allegation against the petitioner is that on account of the non-payment of school fees, she kept the child outside the classroom and denied the child access to drinking water and the washroom despite the child's requests. However, the material on record does not prima facie establish that the petitioner had the actual charge of or control over the victim in the manner contemplated under Section 75 of the Act. Merely by virtue of her designation as a Co-ordinator, the requisite statutory ingredient cannot be presumed in the absence of supporting material…”, the court observed in the order.

According to the prosecution, the de facto complainant, who is the mother of the minor child, lodged a complaint alleging that the coordinator of Nursery to Class II at a private school ill-treated her minor child studying in UKG. The child was said to have returned home in a distressed condition according to the prosecution.

Adv. Y. Sonanjali for the petitioner contended that she was falsely implicated due to her demand for paying the school fees. Even prior to the registration of the complaint, the mother of the minor child had submitted a complaint dated 01.04.2026 to the school management making the same allegations, the counsel added. Pursuant to this, the school had formed an independent committee for enquiry before which the allegations against the petitioner couldn't be substantiated.

Ignoring these developments, the investigating officer mechanically filed the charge sheet, the counsel added. The police also failed to examine any member of the school management or staff, despite the alleged incident having occurred within school premises during school hours, the counsel contended further.

According to the counsel, the petitioner was merely a coordinator and not the class teacher, and hence she did not have such charge or control over the victim-student.

The petitioner's counsel also placed reliance on S.C. Narang v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025), where it was held that the Chairman of a school's Managing Committee could not be said to have 'actual charge of' or 'control over' every child studying in the school merely by virtue of his position.

To the contrary, Advocate U.V. Suresh Babu for the de facto complainant-mother, opposed the petition, submitting that specific allegations had been levelled against the petitioner.

The Court noted that for Section 75 of the JJ Act to apply, the child must have been subjected one of the forms of conduct specified in the provision, in a manner likely to cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering.

“…. Though the absence of independent witnesses, by itself, may not be sufficient to discard the prosecution case, the same assumes relevance when considered alongside the nature of the allegations and the absence of prima facie material establishing the essential statutory ingredients of the alleged offence,” the Court said.

The Court also took note of the school committee's findings on the complaint dated 01.04. 2026 which observed that the behaviour of the de facto complainant-mother during the incident was contrary to the decorum expected within school premises. The findings of the committee also indicated that the victim's parents had used inappropriate language while referring to the nursery coordinator.

“…For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that Section 75 of the Act cannot be applied to the petitioner as the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner had the actual charge of the victim child or control over the victim child. Hence, the petitioner-accused cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the continuation of criminal proceedings against her amounts to sheer abuse of process of the law,…” the Court concluded while allowing the criminal petition.