Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against Construction Site Accused in Child Drowning Case, Directs Rs 5 Lakh to Be Invested Under Post Office Monthly Income Scheme
Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR under Section 106(1) BNS after rejecting an initial Rs 2 lakh settlement as inadequate, directing a structured Post Office deposit for the bereaved mason's surviving children.
The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, sitting singly before Justice M. Nagaprasanna, has quashed an FIR registered against three accused persons in connection with the accidental drowning of a two-and-a-half-year-old child in a water tank at a construction site. The court, deciding Writ Petition No. 18978 of 2026, declined to stamp a first settlement of Rs 2,00,000 as manifestly disproportionate to the loss, called upon the accused to return with a more responsible proposal, and ultimately fashioned a structured arrangement requiring Rs 5,00,000 to be invested in the Post Office Monthly Income Scheme. The FIR, registered on 27 May 2026 at Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, charged the petitioners under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — the provision that replaced Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code for causing death by a rash or negligent act.
The Child, the Construction Site, and the FIR
The second respondent in the writ petition is the father of the deceased child. The child wandered into adjacent premises where construction work was under way. A water tank kept at the site for construction purposes became the site of the tragedy; the child fell in and drowned. On the basis of those facts, the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station registered Crime No. 177/2026 against the three petitioners — Velu alias Velmayil Somu, Abhishek Surana, and Alok S. Sundar — alleging criminal rashness and negligence punishable under Section 106(1) of the BNS.
The matter was pending before the 46th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru. The three accused approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNS, 2023, praying for the FIR to be quashed qua them.
The Legal Argument on Rashness and Negligence
The petitioners' counsel urged that the foundational ingredients of criminal rashness or negligence under Section 106(1) BNS were simply not made out. Their central contention was that the deceased child was neither employed by nor entrusted to the care, custody, or supervision of any of the three accused. The child had entered the premises from an adjoining property. Without that custodial or supervisory nexus, the argument ran, the statutory requirements for attracting Section 106(1) — whose predecessor was Section 304A IPC — were absent.
Section 106(1) of the BNS, like Section 304A of the IPC before it, addresses death caused by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. Its application turns on whether the accused owed a duty of care, or acted rashly or negligently in a way that foreseeably endangered life.
The Court's Refusal to Accept the Initial Settlement
Before the legal argument was fully pressed, the parties placed a memorandum of settlement before the court. The amount offered was Rs 2,00,000. Justice Nagaprasanna declined to accept it.
The court's reasoning was direct: when compensation is put forward as a basis for quashing criminal proceedings, the sum cannot be one that appears “manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the loss.” The life of a child, the court observed, could not be reduced to a figure that scarcely reflected the enormity of the tragedy. The petitioners were called upon to revisit the proposal with a greater sense of responsibility and compassion.
The Revised Settlement and the Structured Arrangement
On 1 July 2026, the petitioners returned with an enhanced offer. They proposed a consolidated sum of Rs 5,00,000 along with an undertaking to pay Rs 10,000 every month for twelve months. In the affidavit placed before the court, the three petitioners affirmed a total settlement figure of Rs 6,20,000 — comprising the lump sum and twelve monthly instalments of Rs 10,000 each. Five demand drafts, collectively constituting the upfront portion of the settlement, were produced: demand draft No. 518779 for Rs 50,000, No. 431377 for Rs 2,00,000, No. 517281 for Rs 1,00,000, No. 517277 for Rs 1,00,000, and No. 431390 for Rs 50,000.
The court did not simply accept the revised offer and quash the FIR. Justice Nagaprasanna paused to consider how the compensation should be structured, having regard to the economic circumstances of the bereaved family. The father of the deceased is a mason who earns his livelihood through daily wages and is responsible for two other young children. A lump sum placed in the hands of a family under such financial pressure, the court reasoned, may be consumed by immediate necessities, leaving little for the long-term welfare of the surviving children. Compassion demanded preservation, not merely disbursement.
The court directed that the Rs 5,00,000 demand draft be invested under the Post Office Monthly Income Scheme, with an appropriate account opened in the name of the complainant. The petitioners were required to complete all necessary formalities so that the monthly interest generated under the scheme flows directly to the complainant. This arrangement is to continue for five years. The income so generated is to be used exclusively for the welfare, education, and upbringing of the surviving son and daughter. After the daughter attains majority, the principal investment may thereafter be withdrawn by the complainant in accordance with law.
Revival of Proceedings in Case of Default
The undertaking given by the petitioners to pay Rs 10,000 per month for twelve months — commencing 10 August 2026 and continuing until 10 August 2027 — was placed on record. The court made clear that any default in honouring this undertaking would entitle the complainant to seek revival of the proceedings and invite appropriate orders from the High Court.
The Court's Observation on Judicial Role in Such Matters
Justice Nagaprasanna articulated a broader view of what courts do in cases where law intersects with acute human suffering. The judicial process cannot restore a life that has been irretrievably lost, the court stated, nor can monetary compensation assuage the anguish of parents. But where parties seek closure and the law permits settlement, the court carries an obligation to ensure that justice does not become a mere commercial bargain, but assumes “the character of meaningful restitution.” The arrangement fashioned, the court said, was intended to preserve not merely compensation, but the future of the children who continue to depend on their parents after an irreplaceable loss.
Order
The writ petition was allowed. The proceedings in Crime No. 177/2026, pending before the 46th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, stand quashed qua the three petitioners. The Rs 5,00,000 demand draft is to be invested in the Post Office Monthly Income Scheme in the complainant's name, with monthly interest payable directly to him for five years for the exclusive use of the surviving children. The monthly instalments of Rs 10,000 are to be paid from 10 August 2026. In the event of default, the complainant is at liberty to seek revival of the proceedings before this court.