Quashing of Section 106(1) BNS Proceedings Upon Equitable Enhancement of Compensatory Restitution for Fatal Negligence

The petitioners (Accused Nos. 1–3) were charged under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, following the death of a 2.5-year-old child.

The child, son of a daily-wage mason (Respondent No. 2), wandered into the petitioners’ construction site and drowned in an open water tank.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR (Crime No. 177/2026) on the grounds that the child was not in their care/custody and that the ingredients of criminal negligence were not met.

During the proceedings, the parties initially proposed a settlement of ₹2,00,000, which the Court rejected as disproportionate to the loss of a child’s life.

Subsequently, the petitioners submitted an enhanced settlement proposal via affidavit, offering ₹5,00,000 as a lump sum and ₹10,000 monthly for twelve months.

1. Whether the Court should exercise its power to quash the FIR under Section 106(1) of the BNS, 2023, based on a settlement between the accused and the bereaved family.

2. Whether a monetary settlement in a case of accidental death of a child meets the standards of "meaningful restitution" and equity required for the Court to lend its imprimatur.

Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which is the statutory successor to Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, dealing with causing death by negligence.

Principle of Equitable Restitution, emphasizing that while human life is beyond pecuniary valuation, Courts may act as "custodians of equity" to ensure a settlement is not a mere "commercial bargain" but serves the long-term welfare of the victims.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNS (successor to Section 482 CrPC).

The Court noted that the foundational ingredients of criminal rashness under Section 106(1) were debatable since the child was a trespasser not entrusted to the petitioners' care.

The Court reasoned that a simple lump-sum payment to an impoverished family might be depleted quickly.

The Court restructured the settlement into a "meaningful restitution" model: the ₹5,00,000 corpus was ordered to be invested in a Post Office Monthly Income Scheme (POMIS) to ensure the interest sustains the surviving children’s education for at least five years.

This approach allowed the Court to balance the petitioners’ desire for closure with the state’s interest in protecting the vulnerable.

The holding was conditioned upon: (i) the investment of ₹5,00,000 in a POMIS account for five years for the welfare of the surviving siblings, and (ii) the petitioners' undertaking to pay an additional ₹10,000 monthly for one year.

The Court granted Respondent No. 2 the liberty to revive the criminal proceedings in the event of any default by the petitioners.