DIVYAJYOTHI SCHOOL MANAGEMENT vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
RD
DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13718 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
DIVYAJYOTHI SCHOOL MANAGEMENT,
REP. BY ITS HEAD MASTER, A JIBY ANTHONY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
O/AT- DIVYA JYOTHI SCHOOL,
GOLLARADODDI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBALI,
MADDURU TALUKU,
MANDYA, KARNATAKA-571 425.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NITIN A M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KOPPA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE – 560001.
2. SMT. SHILPA CHANDRA SHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/A JOGIGOWDA BADAVANE TOWN,
KOPPA HOBALI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. D.A. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) TO
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI
B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
QUASH THE CRIME/FIR NO.94/2025 AS FOR THE OFFENCES
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
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 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
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.
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
CONSIDERATION:
8. The facts narrated hereinbefore are, in their broad
contours, not in serious dispute. The incident occurred on
01.08.2025 in School Bus No.5 belonging to the petitioner–
school. Several children were travelling in the bus. It is alleged
that two or three children had carried coloured
sparklers/confetti and sprayed the same inside the bus, which
entered the eyes of the complainant’s son. The child, on being
dropped near his residence, came running and crying of
burning sensation in his eyes. The mother, initially unaware
of the gravity of the injury, later took the child for
medical treatment, only to be told that the injury had
caused irreversible damage. The allegation, therefore, is
not of a transient hurt; it is of a childhood permanently
scarred.
9. The treatment that the child undertook resulted in
rendering a disability certificate. The disability certificate reads
as follows:
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
A unique disability card is rendered depicting the child to have
permanent disability. The card is as follows:
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. Based upon the said incident and the result of the
child becoming permanently disabled to the tune of 40% to the
whole body, a complaint comes to be registered alleging gross
negligence on the part of the management of the school. I
deem it appropriate to notice the complaint registered on
05.09.2025. The complaint reads as follows:
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
,
"ರವ ೆ
,
ೕ
ಸ ಇ ೆಕ ರವರು
.
ೊಪ ೕ
ಾೆ
,
ೊಪ ಮದೂ ರು ಾಲೂ!ಕು
#ಂದ
.
%&ಾ ಚಂದ()ೇಖ ಈ, ೇ ೋಂ ಚಂದ()ೇಖ
34 , , , ,
ವಷ. ಈ/ಗ ಜ2ಾಂಗ ಗೃ45 6ಾ 7ಾಸ
8ೋ9 ೌಡ ಬ=ಾವ ೆ ೊಪ >ೌ ಮತು@ 6ೋಬ,
, . 9901814323
ಮದೂ ರು ಾ&ೊ!ೕಕು ಮಂಡA B&ೆ! C ನಂ
:-
ಸEಂತ FGಾಸ ೆಲವರೊಪ ಾ(ಮ ಮತು@ ಅಂIೆ
ಅJK6ಾಲೂರು 6ೋಬ, 6ಾನಗL ಾ&ೊ!ೕಕು
6ಾ7ೇ B&ೆ!
,
MಾನANೇ
:- , ,
Fಷಯ PವA8ೊAೕQ ಆಂಗ! MಾದAಮ )ಾ&ೆ ೊಲ!ರSೊ/T ೊಪ 6ೋU
ಮದೂ ರು ಾ&ೊ!ೕಕು ಈ )ಾ&ೆಯ ಆಡ,ತ ಮಂಡ,ಯ ಮುಖAಸVರ
.
Wೇಜ7ಾWಾ ತನದ ಬ ೆX ದೂರು
.
ಈ YೕಲKಂಡ FGಾಸದ ! 7ಾಸ7ಾ9ರು ೆ@ೕ2ೆ ಈ ೆX ಸುMಾರು ಸುMಾರು
13
ವಷ.ಗ,ಂದ 2ಾನು ಮತು@ ನನZ ಕುಟುಂಬ ೊಪ >ೌ\ ೆ ಬಂದು ಇ&ೆ!
.
7ಾಸ7ಾ9ದು ೊಂಡು Bೕವನ ನ=ೆಸು ಾ@ ಇSೆ ೕ7ೆ ನನ ೆ ಇಬ]ರು ಗಂಡು
1 . . 2
ಮಕK,ದು 2ೇ Nೋ4^ ಕುMಾ _ ಐ ಆ9ರು ಾ@Nೆ 2ೇ ಮಗ2ಾದ
. .
ಾQ.a ಕ&ಾAb _ ಐ ಆ9ರು ಾ@Nೆ ಇಬ]ರನುZ ೊಲ!ರSೊ/T
ಾ(ಮದ!ರುವ PವA 8ೊAೕQ ಇಂ9!ೕc dೕ/ಯe )ಾ&ೆಯ !
. 5
ಓದುQ@ರು ಾ@Nೆ Pನ\ತA ನನZ ಇಬ]ರೂ ಮಕKಳh )ಾ&ೆಯ ಬ_ ನ ನಂಬ
.
ರ ! )ಾ&ೆ ೆ 6ೋ9 ಬಂದು MಾಡುQ@ರು ಾ@Nೆ ಈ9ೕರು7ಾಗ P2ಾಂಕ
01-08-2025
ರ ಶುಕ(7ಾರ ಮ2ೆಯನುZ Uಟು )ಾ&ೆ ೆ ಕ,_ದು ನಂತರ
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
)ಾ&ೆಯನುZ Uಟು 7ಾಪಸು ಮ2ೆ ೆ ಬರು7ಾಗ ಬ_ ನ ಬ, 2ಾನು ಮಕKಳನುZ
04-20
ಇ,_ ೊಳjಲು ಸುMಾರು ಸಂ8ೆ ಸಮಯ 6ೋSಾಗ ಅ ! ನನZ
.
ಮಗನು ಕಣುl ಉ ಎಂದು WಾAಗನುZ ಅ&ೆ! UoಾJ ಓ/ 6ೋದನು 2ಾನು
ಮ2ೆ ೆ ಬಂದು ನನZ ಮಗನನುZ ೇಳ&ಾ9 ಬ_ ನ! ಮ2ೆ ೆ ಬರು7ಾಗ
.
ಬ_ ನ! ಇದ ಮಕKಳh pಾNೋ ಬಣlದ dಂಚನುZ ಎರqದರು ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ
.
6ೇ,ದನು 2ಾವrಗಳh ಕ5lನ ! oೇ ರುವ dಂಚು 6ೊರಬಂದNೆ
.
ಸ 6ೋಗಬಹುSೆಂದು tಾF_ pಾವrSೇ ಆಸ ೆ(ೆ ೋ_ರುವrPಲ!
02-08-2025
ನಂತರ P2ಾಂಕ ರಂದು 2ಾನು ಮತು@ ನಮu
ಯಜMಾನNಾದ ಚಂದ()ೇಖ ರವರು ನನZ ಮಗನನುZ ಾನ!
ಮಂಡAದ !ರುವ Q(ೕ2ೇತ( ಕ5lನ ಆಸ ೆ(ೆ ಕNೆದು ೊಂಡು 6ೋSೆವr. ಅ !ನ
7ೈದAರು qJ ೆಯನುZ \ೕ/ 6ೆqxನ qJ ೆಾ9 2ಾNಾಯಣ 2ೇ ಾ(ಲಯ
.
Wೆಂಗಳy ೆ ಕNೆದು ೊಂಡು 6ೋಗಲು ಸೂq_ದರು ನಂತರ 2ಾNಾಯಣ
03-08-2025 05-08-2025
ಆಸ ೆ(ಯ! P2ಾಂಕ ಂದ ರವNೆ ೆ
.
2ಾNಾಯನ 2ೇ ಾ(ಲಯದ! qJ ೆಯನುZ ೊ/_Sೆವr ನಂತರ 7ೈದAರು
ನನZ ಮಗ\ ೆ Yದು, ೆ ಸಂಬಂP_ದಂ ೆ ಇ2ೆ z ಆ9Sೆ ಮಕKಳ ಆಸ ೆ(ೆ
ಕNೆದು ೊಂಡು 6ೋಗಲು ಸೂq_ದ YೕNೆ ೆ ಇನೂZ 6ೆqxನ qJ ೆೆಂದು
gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
ರಂಗSೊNೈ YCೕ ಯL ಆಸ ೆ( ಭನಶಂಕ ೆ ಕ
. 09-08-2025
6ೋSೆವr ನಂತರ ಅ !ಂದ ಮ ೆ@ P2ಾಂಕ ಋಂಧು ಮ ೆ@
.
2ಾNಾಯಣ 2ೇ ಾ(ಲಯ ಆಸ ೆ(ೆ ಬಂದು qJ ೆಯನುZ ೊ/ಸುQ@Sೆ ೕವr
ನನZ ಮಗನನುZ ಪ ೕ~_ದ 7ೈದAರು ನನZ ಮಗ\ ೆ ದೃ• ಮ ೆ@ ಬರಲು
( ).
oಾದAFಲ!7ೆಂದು 6ೇ,ದ YೕNೆ ೆ ಈ ಒಂದು ಅವಘಡ ೆK ಅಪ‚ತ ೆK ಇನುZ
WೆGೆಯ WೇJದ ನನZ ಮಗನ BೕವನವನುZ ಅQ J ಯ ವಯ_ ನ! ಸಂಕಷ ೆK
¯Á
ತ,jದ )ಾ ಆಡ,ತ ಮಂಡ,ಯ ಮುಖAಸVರ Fರುದƒ ಾನೂನು ಕ(ಮವನುZ
.
ಜರು9ಸWೇ ೇಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮuನುZ ಾ(„._ೊಳhjQ@Sೆ ೕ2ೆ
ನನZ ಮಗನನುZ 2ೋ/ ೊಳjಲು pಾರು ಇಲ!ದ ಾರಣ 2ಾ2ೆ
ಆತನನುZ ಆಸ ೆ(ಯ! 2ೋ/ ೊಳhjQ@ದು ನಂತರ )ಾ&ೆಯ ಆಡ,ತ
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
ಮಂಡ,ಯವರು pಾವrದಕೂK ಸ ಂPಸದ ಾರಣ ಈ Pನ ತಡ7ಾ9 ಬಂದು
. "
ದೂರು \ೕಡುQ@Sೆ ೕ2ೆ
11. The complaint may not be an elaborate legal
thesis. It need not be. An FIR is not expected to be an
encyclopaedia of all facts, all offences, all evidence and
all legal consequences. Its purpose is to set the criminal
law in motion. At this stage, the Court is not called upon to
conduct a mini-trial or to weigh the defence of the school
against the allegations of the complainant. The question is
whether the allegations, taken at their face value, warrant
investigation. The answer, in the considered view of this Court,
must be in the affirmative.
12. A school which undertakes to transport children
assumes a duty of care that is heightened, not diminished, by
the tender age of those entrusted to it. In fact, the State
through promulgation of the Rules called the Karnataka
Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and
Prescription of Curricula, etc.,) (Amendment) Rules, 2018,
regulates the educational institutions including transportation.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
The mandatory requirement is indicated in section 1C which
deals with transportation and reads as follows:
13. What is mandated in law is, there should be
attendants in the bus in which students of tender age are
transported to their residences from the school. The
management of the school should oversee whether the teacher
or attendant accompanies the students till the last stop, and a
responsible person/security to oversee the movement of the
vehicles in front of the school for drop/pickup of the children.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
This is the mandate of the statute. The schools cannot violate
the said mandate of the statute. A child which travels in a
school bus which is an extension of the school itself, cannot be
left high and dry till the child from the school reaches the house
even if it is the last stop. The schools cannot show a hands off
to the responsibility of compliance with the mandate of the
statute.
14. Therefore, the safety of children in a school
bus is not a matter of charity or convenience; it is a
solemn obligation mandated under the Statute as well.
Whether there was an attendant in the bus, a security or
whether the CCTV camera was installed, even if installed,
was merely ornamental or functional, whether prohibited
or dangerous material was allowed to be carried by
children, whether the school had issued and enforced
adequate safety instructions, and whether the
management failed in its duty of supervision are all
matters which cry for investigation.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
15. The offence alleged is the one punishable under
Section 125(a) of the BNS, which reads as follows:
" 125. Act endangering life or personal safety of
others .—Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently
as to endanger human life or the personal safety of
others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three months
or with fine which may extend to two thousand five
hundred rupees, or with both, but—
a
( ) where hurt is caused, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with
both; "
( Emphasis supplied)
Section 125(a) penalizes any person who acts rashly or
negligently that it endangers human life or personal safety
which results in injury to someone else. Section 125(a)
corresponds to Sections 336 and 337 of the earlier regime-the
IPC. To attract the mischief of rashness or negligence against a
person, such act of omission or commission must be
attributable to the said accused. The complaint clearly meets
the ingredients of Section 125(a). Therefore, investigation in
the least is a must.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:31211
CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025
HC-KAR
16. The contention that the act was that of another
child and, therefore, the management must stand completely
absolved at the threshold, cannot be accepted at this stage.
The precise contours of culpability, if any, can be delineated
only after investigation. The petitioner may ultimately
demonstrate absence of criminal negligence. But that
conclusion cannot be recorded today by strangulating the
investigation at its inception, especially when the incident has
resulted in permanent disability to a child, a child of tender
age, yet to behold the full bloom of life, has been
condemned to live with permanent visual impairment.
In that light, finding no merit in this petition at this
juncture, the petition stands rejected. Investigation must
ensue.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
CBC
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4