Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32556
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) TO QUASH THE CRIME/FIR NO.94/2025 AS FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 125(a) BNS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE THE KOPPA P.S., MANDYA DATED 05.09.2025, WHICH IS BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) & JMFC COURT, MADDUR, MANDYA DIST.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitin A.M
For the Respondents: Waheeda M.M, D.A. Shivakumar
A school assumes a heightened duty of care for students during transit. Allegations of management negligence—specifically regarding the failure to provide mandated attendants and safety infrastructure—warrant investigation when such omissions constitute potential criminal negligence under Section 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - S. 125(a) - Act endangering life or personal safety - Rashness or negligence - School children safety during transportation - Whether school management can be absolved of criminal liability when incident involving injury is caused by act of another child - Held, School bus is an extension of school, and management assumes a heightened duty of care; allegations of negligence in supervision, absence of attendants/functional CCTV warrant investigation.
(B) Quashing of FIR - Scope under Section 482 Cr.P.C (528 BNSS) - FIR is not an encyclopedia - Investigation should not be stifled at inception when allegations constitute cognizable offence, especially involving permanent injury to a minor.
Facts of the case:
The complainant's child, a student, sustained a serious eye injury due to sparklers/confetti sprayed by other children in a school bus. The child suffered 40% permanent disability. The FIR alleges school management was criminally negligent for failing to provide attendants, ensure functional CCTV, and supervise safety during transit. The school filed a petition seeking to quash the proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The statutory mandate under Karnataka Educational Institutions Rules, 2018, requires school management to ensure safety during transportation. The court held that the question of whether the school failed in its supervisory duty or provided the mandated safety measures is a matter for investigation. Criminal culpability cannot be determined at the threshold, particularly given the irreversible nature of the child's injury.
Issues: Whether criminal investigation against school management for alleged negligence resulting in student injury should be quashed at the FIR stage.
Ratio Decidendi: An FIR is only to set the criminal law in motion; the court will not conduct a mini-trial at the quashing stage. When the transport of students is a school responsibility, the management’s failure to adhere to mandated safety protocols that results in injury creates a prima facie case for investigation into criminal negligence under S. 125(a) BNS.
Result: Petition rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition for quashing the fir. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding school management's liability. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. contextual facts regarding the incident and medical disability assessment. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. the heightened duty of care school management owes to students during transportation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. application of negligence statutes regarding criminal liability and investigation necessity. (Para 15 , 16) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-Management of the Divyajyothi School is before the Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.94/2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 125(a) of the BNS, 2023, registered on 05.09.2025.
2. Heard Sri.Nitin A.M, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Waheeda M.M, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.D.A.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
3.1. The son of the second respondent–complainant, a child studying in the 4th standard in the petitioner–school, was travelling home in School Bus No.5 on 01.08.2025 along with several other children. During the journey, some children are alleged to have carried and sprayed coloured confetti/sparklers inside the bus, one such spray having entered the eyes of the complainant’s child. What may have appeared, at first blush, to be a childish mischief or a fleeting accident, allegedly culminated in a calamity of lifelong consequence: the child lost vision in one eye and suffered disability assessed at 40% to the whole body.
3.2. The complaint, lodged on 05.09.2025, alleges that this tragedy was not merely the result of an isolated act of another child, but was occasioned by the negligence of the school management in failing to ensure adequate supervision inside the school bus, in failing to provide an attendant, and in failing to ensure that the CCTV camera installed in the bus was functional. The registration of the crime has brought the petitioner before this Court. A Co-ordinate Bench, by order dated 27.10.2025, stayed further investigation against the petitioner–school, and the said interim order continues to operate.
SUBMISSIONS:
PETITIONER:
4. Learned counsel Sri.Nitin M, appearing for the petitioner, submits that all the necessary precautions had been taken by presence of an attender in the bus, the installation of a CCTV and what other steps had to be taken, the school is not aware and the unfortunate incident though has happened where the child has lost his eye, the management cannot be hauled for the act of another child or act that has happened inside a school bus after the hours of the school, is his submission. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.
STATE:
5. Contrariwise, the learned HCGP would take this Court through the papers of investigation to demonstrate that the CCTV though was installed, was not functioning. The attender was not present and therefore, these are matters which have to be investigated into, more so in the light of the fact of a child losing the eye.
COMPLAINANT:
6. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that the responsibility of the school does not begin and end within the four walls of the classroom. It travels with the child from the time the child is received into the custody of the school until the child is safely restored to the hands of the parent. The school bus is not a detached island beyond institutional responsibility; it is an extension of the school itself. He would further submit that if investigation itself is interdicted at this stage, not only would criminal accountability be foreclosed, but even the complainant’s pursuit of consequential remedies, including compensation, would be seriously prejudiced.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel.
CONSIDERATION:
8. The facts narrated hereinbefore are, in thei
