Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash FIR Against School Whose Bus Ride Left a Child Permanently Blind in One Eye

Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that a school bus is an extension of the school itself, and allegations of an absent attendant and a non-functional CCTV camera demand investigation under Section 125(a) BNS, not premature closure.

The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed a petition filed by the management of Divyajyothi School, Gollaradoddi Village, Madduru Taluk, Mandya, seeking to quash an FIR registered against it for the offence under Section 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, sitting singly at Bengaluru, rejected the plea on 23 June 2026, holding that the allegations — an absent bus attendant, a non-functional CCTV camera, and a failure to prevent dangerous material from being carried by children — squarely attract the ingredients of criminal negligence and must be investigated. The child at the centre of the complaint, a fourth-standard student, lost vision in one eye and was assessed with a 40% permanent disability to the whole body after coloured sparklers were sprayed inside the school bus on 1 August 2025.

The Incident and the FIR

On 1 August 2025, the complainant's son was travelling home in School Bus No. 5 belonging to Divyajyothi School along with several other children. During the journey, some children allegedly carried and sprayed coloured confetti or sparklers inside the bus. One such spray entered the eyes of the complainant's child.

When the child was dropped near his residence that evening, he came running and crying of a burning sensation in his eyes. His mother, initially unaware of the gravity of the injury, took him for medical treatment the following day. The child was taken to a hospital in Mandya, then referred to Narayana Nethralaya in Bengaluru, where he was treated from 3 August to 5 August 2025. He was subsequently taken to Rangadore Memorial Hospital. Doctors eventually informed the family that the damage to the child's vision was irreversible.

A disability certificate was issued, and a unique disability card was generated recording a permanent disability of 40% to the whole body. The complainant, Smt. Shilpa Chandra Shekar, lodged a complaint on 5 September 2025 before the Koppa Police Station, Mandya. Crime No. 94/2025 was registered for the offence under Section 125(a) of the BNS. The case is before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Maddur, Mandya District.

The school management, represented by its Head Master Jiby Anthony, filed Criminal Petition No. 13718 of 2025 before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking to quash the FIR. A Co-ordinate Bench, by order dated 27 October 2025, stayed further investigation against the school. That interim order continued to operate until the present judgment.

What the School and the State Argued

Counsel for the school, Sri Nitin A.M., argued that all necessary precautions had been taken: an attendant was present in the bus and a CCTV camera had been installed. He submitted that the management could not be held responsible for the act of another child, and that the incident occurred inside the school bus after school hours. He sought quashment of the proceedings entirely.

The High Court Government Pleader, Smt. Waheeda M.M., appearing for the State, took the Court through the investigation papers to demonstrate that the CCTV camera, though installed, was not functioning at the relevant time, and that an attendant was not present in the bus. She submitted that these were matters requiring investigation, particularly given that a child had lost an eye.

Counsel for the complainant, Sri D.A. Shivakumar, argued that the school's responsibility does not end at the classroom door. He submitted that the school bus is not a detached island beyond institutional responsibility; it is an extension of the school itself. He further argued that if investigation were stopped at this stage, not only would criminal accountability be foreclosed, but the complainant's pursuit of consequential remedies, including compensation, would be seriously prejudiced.

The Statutory Framework: Karnataka Educational Institutions Rules, 2018

Justice Nagaprasanna referred to the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.,) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, which regulate educational institutions including their transportation arrangements. Section 1C of those Rules deals specifically with transportation and sets out mandatory requirements.

The Court noted that the Rules require attendants to be present in buses transporting students of tender age to their residences. The school management is obligated to ensure that a teacher or attendant accompanies students until the last stop, and that a responsible person or security personnel oversees the movement of vehicles during drop-off and pick-up of children.

The Court was direct: schools cannot violate this statutory mandate. A child travelling in a school bus, which is an extension of the school itself, cannot be left without supervision until safely returned home, even at the last stop. The Court held that schools cannot adopt a hands-off approach to compliance with the statute.

Why the Court Refused to Quash

Justice Nagaprasanna set out the legal position on FIR quashing at the threshold. An FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of all facts, offences, evidence, and 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 weigh the school's defence against the complainant's allegations. The question is whether the allegations, taken at face value, warrant investigation.

The Court answered that question in the affirmative. Section 125(a) of the BNS penalises any person who acts so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety, where hurt is caused. The provision carries a punishment of imprisonment for up to six months, or a fine of up to five thousand rupees, or both. The Court noted that Section 125(a) corresponds to Sections 336 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code under the earlier regime.

The Court identified several specific questions that the investigation must address: whether an attendant was present in the bus; whether a security person was overseeing vehicle movement; whether the CCTV camera was installed and functional or merely ornamental; 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.

The school's argument that the act was that of another child and therefore the management must stand completely absolved at the threshold was rejected. The Court held that the precise contours of culpability, if any, can be delineated only after investigation. The school may ultimately demonstrate the absence of criminal negligence, but that conclusion cannot be recorded at the inception of investigation, especially when the incident has resulted in permanent disability to a child of tender age who has been condemned to live with permanent visual impairment.

The Court observed that “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.”

Outcome

Criminal Petition No. 13718 of 2025 was rejected. The interim stay on investigation granted by the Co-ordinate Bench on 27 October 2025 ceased to operate. Investigation in Crime No. 94/2025, registered at Koppa Police Station, Mandya, for the offence under Section 125(a) of the BNS, must now proceed.