Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the teacher did not have requisite intent to outrage the de facto complainant's modesty as he beat her only to wake her in a class full of students.

“I am unable to discern how an intention to outrage the modesty of the de facto complainant can be attributed to the petitioner merely on the allegation that he, being her teacher, beat her on the palm in the presence of the other students. The allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the requisite mens rea necessary to constitute an offence under Section 354 of the IPC,” the Court observed.

The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner, while taking a class in her college, beat her on her palm and outraged her modesty. Though she complained before the Head of the department, he abused her using obscene words over the telephone, it is further alleged. A crime was registered against the teacher and the HoD under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking to the quash the criminal proceedings. He pointed out that he was a visiting faculty in the college and a reputed academician in the field of drama and theatre arts. When he was taking class, he noticed that the complainant was sitting drowsily and in order to wake her, he gave a trivial beat on her palm, it was submitted.

The petitioner pointed out that the HoD, who was arrayed as the 2^nd accused in the case, was already exonerated in the case when the case against him was quashed by the High Court. He also contended that the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out in the complaint.

After hearing the parties, the Court perused the FIS and remarked that it is difficult to accept that an ordinary person would touch one his students in a lustful manner in the presence of a class full of students. It was of the view that the necessary intent was absent in the case and therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 354 IPC are not made out.

Thus, the Court allowed the plea and quashed all criminal proceedings against the teacher.

Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 5421 of 2026

Case Title: Raja Varier v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 528

Counsel for the petitioner: M.P. Sreekrishnan, Thejalakshmi R.S.

Counsel for the respondents: Megha K. Xavier – Sr. Public Prosecutor

Click to Read/Download Order