If teacher assaults student, principal too responsible: Court

Nagpur: While refusing to quash proceedings against a principal, a sessions court here ruled that being a head of the institution, he has the responsibility of anything happening inside the school premises between teachers and students.
Additional sessions judge PY Ladekar maintained charges framed by the police against Suyash Convent principal Anurag Pandey under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act for alleged assault and misbehaviour by one of his teachers against girl students.
“Undisputedly the accused is the principal of the said school. He was the person along with the managing body, who had employed the first accused teacher to teach dance to the students. Being principal/headmaster of the school, certainly he was having control over not only the students, but also the teacher,” the judge held.
The court was hearing Pandey’s application for discharge from the offences registered under Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons) of IPC and JJ Act by the Hudkeshwar Police Station against first accused Manish Raut, a dance teacher from his school, who had allegedly thrashed the minor girls with an iron rod during practice, causing them injuries on November 30, 2011. The complaint was lodged by a father of a seventh standard girl.
After the police filed a charge-sheet against both accused, Pandey moved an application for discharge from the crime before judicial magistrate first class (JMFC) through counsel Tejas Deshpande. However, while rejecting his plea, the JMFC held that though he wasn’t present at the spot when assault on girls took place, being a headmaster/principal, he was equally responsible for the offence against minors.
The 38-year-old principal then challenged this verdict in the sessions court by filing a revision application through Deshpande. It was strongly opposed by assistant public prosecutor Pankaj Tapase who pointed out that four to five days prior to November 30, 2011, the aggrieved parents had met the principal and lodged a complaint against the dance teacher of alleged misbehaviour. However, Pandey failed to take any action against Raut.
Pandey’s counsel contended that the JMFC had committed a grave error of law and evidence submitted by the cops was insufficient to make out a case against the accused. Deshpande said even the JJ Act was not invoked as the principal was not having actual charge of the students. “He has not assaulted, abandoned or neglected the girls. His involvement in the crime is not coming forward from the statement of witnesses,” he said, while stressing on quashing JMFC’s order.
While partly allowing Pandey’s application, Ladekar discharged him from Section 324 of IPC, but maintained proceedings against him under Section 75 of the JJ Act. “Prima facie there are reasonable grounds to proceed against the revisionist for the offence under the JJ Act. To that extent, the order passed by the magistrate cannot be faulted with,” the judge said.
WHAT COURT SAID
* Principal along with managing body employed first accused to teach dance
* Being principal/headmaster of school, he was having control over students & teacher
* There are reasonable grounds to proceed against principal under JJ Act
* order passed by magistrate cannot be faulted with