Cuttack: A teacher cannot be held criminally responsible for a student’s suicide merely for reprimanding him as part of routine disciplinary action, Orissa high court has ruled while quashing criminal proceedings against four teachers and staff members of a school in Keonjhar district.They were accused of abetting the death of a 16-year-old student who had allegedly jumped off the fourth floor of the hostel of an English-medium school in Champua on July 12, 2025.Considering their petition on Oct 12, Justice R K Pattanaik held that there was no prima facie evidence to suggest that the accused had instigated or provoked the Class X student to take his life. The court set aside a Sept 24, 2025, order of the sub-divisional judicial magistrate (SDJM), Champua, taking cognisance of the alleged offence.“A simple act of reprimand of a student by a teacher, who is under moral obligation to maintain discipline, would not amount to instigation or intentionally aiding to the commission of a suicide,” Justice Pattanaik observed.The student’s father had alleged that school staff had assaulted and tortured the boy a day before his death.Police initially registered a murder case but later filed a charge sheet accusing the four petitioners of abetting suicide and acting with common intention under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.Examining the investigation materials, the court found that some hostel inmates had been intoxicated after sniffing an intoxicant, following which the school staff reprimanded them and warned that their guardians would be informed.Some students were also punished by being made to spend the night on the hostel verandah.The deceased was among those reprimanded. However, the court noted that there was no allegation of continuous harassment against the petitioners or evidence of any deliberate act to provoke the student into taking his life.“The legal threshold for abetment to suicide requires proof of active instigation, provocation or intentional aid,” Justice Pattanaik said, stressing that the necessary criminal intent could not be inferred from an isolated incident of disciplinary action.Justice Pattanaik also rejected allegations that the conduct of the staff after the incident indicated malicious intent. He said the delay of around 90 minutes in informing the student’s father was not sufficient ground to establish wrongdoing, as the staff might have been occupied with efforts to save his life.Holding that the magistrate had accepted the charge sheet without proper application of judicial mind, the judge concluded that the materials did not establish a prima facie case of abetment to suicide and quashed the cognisance order.