Dismissed¶49

Smt Farida Banu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2025CRL.P/11534/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.PC (cause title also notes filing U/S 528 BNNS) by Aaya/accused No.2 in a school-bus death case; Sections 279 and 304A IPC; C.C.No.1904/2016 before V Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Shivamogga; Shivamogga East Traffic Police Station; charge sheet materials prima facie disclose petitioner's involvement; distinct complementary duties of driver and Aaya towards children's safety; negligence solely attributable to driver contended but left to trial; trial pending since 2015; direction for expeditious conclusion; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

At this stage, the charge sheet materials prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC. ¶37

Smt Farida Banu Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings against the petitioner (accused No.2), employed as an Aaya in the school bus, are liable to be quashed on the ground that even accepting the charge sheet material at face value it would not constitute the offences alleged against her under Sections 279 and 304A IPC. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

At this stage, the charge sheet materials prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Whether the negligent act of accused No.1, the driver, was entirely beyond the control of petitioner/accused No.2 can only be determined during a full-fledged trial upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

¶37

Key takeaways

Both the driver and the Aaya had distinct and complementary duties towards ensuring the children's safety, and lapses in either role could have serious consequences; the case is fit to proceed for trial and no indulgence can be shown at this stage.ratio¶41
The petitioner's contention that the ingredients of Sections 279 and 304A IPC are not attracted to her role cannot be accepted at this preliminary stage.ratio¶42
Since the trial has been pending since 2015, the learned Magistrate is directed to ensure the proceedings are concluded expeditiously, with prosecution and defence to extend full co-operation for early disposal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Sachin Shankar Magadum J.) dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.PC filed by accused No.2, employed as an Aaya in a school bus, seeking quashing of the charge sheet in C.C.No.1904/2016 (Shivamogga East Traffic Police Station) for offences under Sections 279 and 304A IPC, arising from the death of a five-year-old child run over by the school bus driven by accused No.1. The Court held that the charge sheet materials, including the further statement of the deceased child's mother (CW1) and eye-witnesses CWs.2-4, prima facie disclosed the petitioner's involvement, since the Aaya was entrusted with accompanying the children in transit and ensuring each child was safely dropped home; whether the driver's negligence was entirely beyond her control was left to be determined at trial. Holding that both driver and Aaya had distinct and complementary safety duties, the Court declined indulgence at the preliminary stage and directed the learned Magistrate to conclude the trial, pending since 2015, expeditiously.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:30508 CRL.P No. 11534 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11534 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT FARIDA BANU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O DADA KALANDAR D/O HAJI SAHEN R/O NEAR GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL LAKKAVALLI, TARIKERE TALUK CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 128

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT: BRINDA VARMA FOR SRI: K VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHIMOGA EAST TRAFFIC POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 001

¶15

SMT S. SARALA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS W/O N.G. VEDHAMURTHY NANJAPPA LAYOUT BACKSIDE MYTRI COLLEGE SHIVAMOGGA - 577 203

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI: RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:30508 CRL.P No. 11534 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER B THE SHIVAMOGGA EAST TRAFFIC P.S AGAINST THIS PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.1904/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279 AND 304-A OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED V ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT SHIVAMOGGA.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This captioned petition is filed by accused No.2 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in CC No.1904 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶25

The petitioner, arrayed as accused No.2, calls in

¶26

question the charge sheet materials on the ground that there are absolutely no incriminating allegations which would attract

¶27

the ingredients of Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC insofar as she is concerned. It is strenuously contended that the accident

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:30508 CRL.P No. 11534 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

in question was solely attributable to accused No.1, who was driving the school bus at the relevant point of time.

¶31

The petitioner asserts that, she being employed only as an Aaya in the bus, had neither control over the driving of the vehicle nor any role in the unfortunate incident. She emphasizes that she had no nexus with the negligent act which resulted in the tragic death of a five-year-old child who was returning home in the school bus. It is further urged that even if the entire charge sheet material is accepted on its face value, the same would not constitute the offences alleged against her, and therefore, the proceedings as against her are liable to be quashed.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and meticulously examined the first information report as well as the further statement of the mother of the deceased child, who was run over by accused No.1 while driving the school bus.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:30508 CRL.P No. 11534 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

On a careful examination of the further statement

¶37

of the complainant and the charge sheet materials, it emerges that the petitioner, though working as an Aaya in the school bus, was entrusted with the specific responsibility of accompanying the children during transit and ensuring that each child was safely dropped at their respective homes. This duty was not merely ancillary but formed an essential part of the safety protocol for transporting minor children. The allegation is that the petitioner failed to discharge this duty with the required degree of care, which, in the present case, has allegedly contributed to the tragic incident. Whether the negligent act of accused No.1, the driver of the bus, was entirely beyond the control of petitioner/accused No.2 is a matter that can only be determined during the course of a fullfledged trial, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence. At this stage, the charge sheet materials prima facie disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the IPC.

¶38

The incident concerns the death of a minor child aged barely five years, allegedly caused by the gross

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30508 CRL.P No. 11534 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

negligence of the school’s employees. The Investigating Officer, upon completion of investigation, has recorded the further statement of the mother of the deceased child, who is cited as CW1, along with the statements of eye-witnesses cited as CWs.2, 3, and 4. These materials, when read together, prima facie indicate that both the driver and the Aaya had distinct and complementary duties towards ensuring the children’s safety. Lapses in either role could have serious consequences, as in the present case. In light of such material, this Court is of the considered view that the case is fit to proceed for trial, and no indulgence can be shown at this stage.

¶42

The contention of the petitioner that the ingredients of Sections 279 and 304A IPC are not attracted to her role cannot be accepted at this preliminary stage.

¶43

Since the trial has been pending since 2015, the learned Magistrate is directed to ensure that the proceedings are concluded expeditiously, and both the prosecution and the defence counsel are directed to extend full co-operation for the early disposal of the matter.

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:30508 CRL.P No. 11534 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORDER

The Criminal Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,

¶49

stands dismissed.

¶50