SRI. VELU @ VELMAYIL SOMU vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:35110
WP No. 18978 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 18978 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VELU @ VELMAYIL SOMU
S/O SOMU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2/24,
MARIAMMAN KOVIL STREET,
THIMMACHUR, VILUPPURAM,
TAMIL NADU - 605 751.
2.
SRI. ABHISHEK SURANA
S/O HANUMAN MAL SURANA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.536, GF-A,
RAJESHWARI PALACE,
27TH CROSS ROAD,
KENCHENAHALLI,
NEAR PADMAVATI
KALYAN MANTAP (BACK GATE),
IDEAL HOME SOCIETY,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
3. SRI. ALOK. S. SUNDAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13, 3RD MAIN,
SUDARSHAN LAYOUT,
BEML 3RD STAGE,
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI
B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:35110
WP No. 18978 of 2026
HC-KAR
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KARTHIK KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SONU MACHWAR
S/O ROYDAS MACHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/AT NO.-NIL, GLOBLE VILLAGE,
FRONT GATE, PATTAMAGERE,
R.R NAGAR,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 098.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, SPP-1 FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARITCLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF
THE BNS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DTD 27.05.2026
IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER NO. 1, 2 AND 3/ ACCUSED NO.
1, 2 AND 3 ARE CONCERNED IN CRIME NO. 177/2026
REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
POLICE STATION BANGALORE FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:35110
WP No. 18978 of 2026
HC-KAR
UNDER SECTION 106 (1) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA
(BNS) 2023 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED 46TH ADDL. CMM
COURT BANGALORE CITY CIVE ANNX-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 3 stand at the doors of this
Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime
th
No.177/2026, pending before the 46 Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for the offence
punishable under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’), the statutory successor to
Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution springs from a tragedy that no
Court can narrate without a sense of profound sorrow—
the untimely extinguishment of the life of a child barely
two and a half years of age.
3. Heard Sri. Karthik Kumar K., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:35110
WP No. 18978 of 2026
HC-KAR
SPP-1, appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the
material on record.
4. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The second respondent is the bereaved father. The little
child, innocent wandered into the premises of the petitioners
where construction activity was in progress. A water tank, left
within the premises for the purposes of construction, became
the receptacle of an unspeakable tragedy. The child
accidentally fell into the tank and drowned. From that singular
event of immeasurable human loss has emerged on the
allegation that the petitioners were rash and negligent, thereby
attracting the offence punishable under Section 106(1) of the
BNS.
5. It is an admitted position that the deceased child was
neither employed by nor entrusted to the care, custody or
supervision of the petitioners. The child had merely entered
the premises from the adjoining property. It is in that factual
backdrop, that the petitioners contend that the foundational
ingredients constituting criminal rashness or negligence, as
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:35110
WP No. 18978 of 2026
HC-KAR
contemplated under Section 304A of the erstwhile Indian Penal
Code or its present avatar under Section 106(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, would not stand attracted.
6. The parties, recognising that litigation seldom heals the
wounds of bereavement, had initially placed before this Court a
memorandum of settlement. The amount offered as
compensation was a sum of ` 2,00,000/-. This Court found
itself unable to lend its imprimatur to such a settlement.
Human life is beyond pecuniary valuation; yet when
compensation is sought to be substituted for criminal
proceedings, the Court cannot permit a settlement that
appears manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the
loss. The life of a child, radiant with unfulfilled promise
and infinite possibilities, cannot be reduced to a figure
that scarcely reflects the enormity of the tragedy . The
Court, therefore, declined to accept the settlement and called
upon the petitioners to revisit the proposal with a greater sense
of responsibility and compassion.
7. Pursuant thereto, on 01.07.2026, the petitioners
returned before the Court with an enhanced proposal. They
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:35110
WP No. 18978 of 2026
HC-KAR
offered to pay a consolidated sum of ` 5,00,000/- together with
an undertaking to pay ` 10,000/- every month for the
succeeding twelve months. The affidavit of the petitioners
reads as follows:
“AFFIDAVIT
We,
SRI. VELU @ VELAMAYIL SOMU, S/o Somu, Aged about 43
years, R/at No.2/24, Mariamman Kovil Street,
Thimmachur, Viluppuram, Tamil Nadu, today at Bangalore,
the PETITIONER NO.1 and
SRI. ABHISHEK SURANA, S/0 Hanuman Mal Surana, Aged
about 44 years, Residing at No.536, GF-A, Rajeshwari
th
Palace, 27 Cross Road, Kenchenahalli, Nest Padmavati
Kalyan Mantap (Back Gate), Ideal Home Society,
Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bengaluru, the PETITIONER NO.2;
and
SRI. ALOK S. SUNDAR, Aged about 40 years, R/at No.13,
rd rd
3 Main, Sudarshan Layout, BEML 3 Stage,
Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bengaluru, the PETITIONER NO.3;
do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I state that, we are Petitioner No.1, 2 and 3 in this case.
I am well acquaintance with facts and circumstances of this
case. Hence, I am swearing to this affidavit on our behalf.
2. I state that, we have filed the present petition seeking
to quash F.I.R. dated 27.05.2026, in Crime No.0177 of
2026 registered by Respondent Rajarajeshwari Nagar
Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable
under Section 106(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS],
th
2023, on the file of the Learned 46 Addl. CMM Court,
Bangalore City.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:35110
WP No. 18978 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. I state that, during the pendency of the present
proceedings, the parties have amicably resolved all
our disputes. Pursuant to the said settlement, it was
mutually agreed that we, the deponents, shall jointly
pay a total compensation of Rs.6,20,000/-(Rupees
Six Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) to Respondent
No.2 towards the full and final settlement of all
claims and disputes arising out of the present
proceedings. In furtherance of the said compromise
and in order to demonstrate our bona fide intention
to honour the terms of settlement, we have jointly
arranged and drawn demand drafts in favour of
Respondent No.2, namely:
➤
Demand Draft bearing No.518779 for Rs.50,000/-
[Rupees Fifty Thousand only],
➤
Demand Draft bearing No.431377 for Rs.2,00,000/-
[Rupees Two Lakhs only],
➤
Demand Draft bearing No.517281 for Rs.1,00,000/-
[Rupees One Lakh only].
➤
Demand Draft bearing No.517277 for Rs.1,00,000/-
[Rupees One Lakh only],
➤
Demand Draft bearing No.431390 for Rs.50,000/-
[Rupees Fifty Thousand only)
which together constitute a substantial portion of
the agreed compensation payable to Respondent
No.2. The said demand drafts are being produced
before this Hon’ble Court as evidence of our
compliance with the terms of the compromise.
4. I state that, we hereby voluntarily undertake to jointly
deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- Rupees Ten Thousand Only]
every month into the bank account of Respondent No.2 for
a continuous period of one year, commencing from
10.08.2026 and continuing up to 10.08.2027. I further
state that the said monthly deposits shall be made
regularly on or before the 10th day of each succeeding
month without any default.
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:35110
WP No. 18978 of 2026
HC-KAR
VERIFICATION
We, the deponents, do hereby verify that the contents of
the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. Nothing material has
been concealed therefrom and no part of it is false.”
(Emphasis added)
Having regard to the economic circumstances of the
family of the deceased, this Court considered not merely the
quantum of compensation, but also the manner in which such
compensation would best serve the surviving members of the
bereaved household.
8. The father of the deceased is a mason, earning
his livelihood through daily wages, and is burdened with
the responsibility of nurturing two other young children.
Experience teaches Courts that a substantial lump sum,
placed in the hands of an impoverished family struggling
for daily survival, may be consumed by immediate
necessities, leaving little for the long-term welfare of the
surviving children. Compassion, therefore, demanded not
merely disbursement but preservation.
9. It was in those circumstances that this Court directed
that the amount of ` 5,00,000/- be invested in an interest-
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:35110
WP No. 18978 of 2026
HC-KAR
bearing deposit, so that the corpus remains protected, while
the periodic returns become a source of sustenance for the
family.
10. Today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
has produced before this Court a Demand Draft for a sum of
` 5,00,000/- and has reaffirmed the undertaking that the
balance amount shall be paid in monthly instalments of
` 10,000/- for a period of one year.
11. This Court is of the considered view that the Demand
Draft shall be invested under the Post Office Monthly Income
Scheme after opening an appropriate account in the name of
the complainant. The petitioners shall ensure that all necessary
formalities are completed so that the monthly interest
generated under the Scheme is directly made available to the
complainant, for a period of five years. Such recurring income
shall be utilised exclusively for the welfare, education and
upbringing of the surviving son and daughter. Upon the
daughter attaining the age of majority, the investment may
thereafter continue to remain available for withdrawal by the
complainant in accordance with law.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:35110
WP No. 18978 of 2026
HC-KAR
12. The Courts do not merely adjudicate disputes;
at times they become silent custodians of equity where
law intersects with human suffering. The judicial
process cannot restore a life that has been irretrievably
lost, nor can any monetary recompense assuage the
anguish of parents. Yet, where parties seek closure and
the law permits such settlement, the Court bears the
solemn obligation of ensuring that justice is not reduced
to a mere commercial bargain, but, assumes the
character of meaningful restitution. The arrangement
fashioned in the present case is intended to preserve not
merely the compensation, but the future of those
children, who continue to look to their parents for hope
after the family has endured an irreplaceable loss.
13. The undertaking furnished by the petitioners to
continue payment of ` 10,000/- every month for the ensuing
twelve months is placed on record.
14. Needless to observe, should there be any default in
honouring the undertaking, it shall be open to the complainant
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:35110
WP No. 18978 of 2026
HC-KAR
to seek revival of the present proceedings and invite
appropriate orders from this Court.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
a. The writ petition is allowed.
b. The proceedings in Crime No.177/2026, pending
th
before the 46 Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Benglauru, stand quashed, qua the
petitioners.
c. In the event of default of payment by the petitioners,
as is observed in the course of the order, respondent
No.2 – complainant is at liberty to seek revival of the
proceedings.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
SJK/nvj
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25