Quashing an FIR alleging child harassment is premature where prima facie material warrants investigation.

The petitioners, two teachers at a government school in Tarikere, sought to quash a complaint and FIR registered as Crime No. 172/2019 for offences under Section 504 IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

The complaint alleged that the teachers had repeatedly subjected a student to mental harassment; it referred to an earlier internal inquiry and statements by the student and her mother.

The petitioners denied the allegations and claimed the complaint was false.

They also sought to quash proceedings and a summons issued by the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

The High Court considered the challenge while police investigation was ongoing.

1. Whether the complaint and FIR should be quashed when the allegations and material accompanying the complaint prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.

2. Whether the Court should quash the proceedings and summons issued by the State Commission, including on the ground that the authority of the earlier Committee was disputed.

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.

The Court considered Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, and held that where the complaint and its annexures disclose allegations prima facie attracting that provision, the police may register a case and investigate.

The Court also referred to Section 173 CrPC, noting that if investigation produces no material against the petitioners, the investigating agency may file an appropriate report.

The Court found that the complaint was supported by statements of the student and her mother and a counselling report, and that the allegations concerned repeated mental harassment.

It considered the dispute over whether the petitioners had admitted misconduct in the earlier inquiry to be a matter that could not be resolved at this stage.

Given the prima facie allegations under Section 75, the Court held that the police had properly registered the case and that investigation should continue.

It declined to decide the authority of the earlier Committee in the present petition, given its scope.

It left the petitioners at liberty to challenge any adverse report filed after investigation in accordance with law; pending applications were consigned to the record.