SHIMLA: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has delivered a significant ruling concerning children’s rights and mental health, stating that publicly branding a child a “thief” and threatening them with imprisonment prima facie amounts to inflicting mental agony.
A single-judge bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by the principal of I-Genius School in Parwanoo. The principal had approached the high court seeking the quashing of an FIR and the subsequent police chargesheet filed against them under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The high court observed that the mere absence of trauma symptoms in a clinical psychologist’s report is not sufficient grounds to quash an FIR. Justice Kainthla clarified that the actual extent of the mental agony suffered by the child is a matter of evidence to be determined by the trial court during the proceedings.
According to the complaint lodged by the student’s father, the principal publicly called his Class 7 son a “thief” in front of the entire classroom. The principal also allegedly threatened the boy with life imprisonment and jail time, questioned his upbringing, and spoke of forcing him to change schools.
The complainant further stated that following the incident, the child was completely isolated from regular school activities and removed from the official classroom WhatsApp group, leaving him deeply distressed.
In defense, the principal argued that since the psychologist’s report found no signs or symptoms of psychological trauma in the child, no cognizable offense was made out under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and requested the immediate quashing of the FIR.
Rejecting the defense’s argument, the high court held that calling a child a thief before his classmates and threatening him with jail are acts naturally capable of causing severe mental suffering. The bench noted that a psychologist’s report does not automatically dismantle the prosecution’s case, as mental harassment can be proven through other evidence during the trial.
Justice Kainthla added that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash an FIR, the high court cannot evaluate the truth of the allegations or weigh the defense evidence. Since the police investigation and documents prima facie disclose a cognizable offense, the court ruled that the matter must be decided through a full trial.
