Dismissed¶112

Divyajyothi School Management v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2026CRL.P/13718/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (M.Nagaprasanna J., 23-06-2026) rejects S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS petition to quash FIR in Crime No.94/2025 (Koppa PS, Mandya) under S.125(a) BNS against school management after a child lost vision in one eye from sparkler spray inside the school bus; school duty of care heightened for tender-age children; Karnataka Educational Institutions (Amendment) Rules 2018 S.1C mandate of attendants; CCTV functionality; supervision; act of another child no threshold absolution; FIR not an encyclopaedia of facts; investigation to proceed.

What did the court decide?

An FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of all facts, all offences, all evidence and all legal consequences; its purpose is to set the criminal law in motion. ¶84

Divyajyothi School Management Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶112

Issue for consideration

Whether the registration of Crime No.94/2025 under Section 125(a) of the BNS against the petitioner-school management, arising from an incident in the school bus in which a child lost vision in one eye, should be quashed. +2 more

¶27

Court's answer

A school which undertakes to transport children assumes a duty of care that is heightened, not diminished, by the tender age of those entrusted to it; the State regulates educational institutions including transportation through the 2018 Amendment Rules.

¶85

Ratio / Principle

An FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of all facts, all offences, all evidence and all legal consequences; its purpose is to set the criminal law in motion.

¶84

Key takeaways

At this stage the Court is not called upon to conduct a mini-trial or weigh the defence of the school against the allegations of the complainant; the allegations taken at their face value warrant investigation, and the answer is in the affirmative.ratio¶84
The law mandates that there should be attendants in the bus in which students of tender age are transported from the school to their residences, with oversight till the last stop; this is the mandate of the statute which schools cannot violate.ratio¶91

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025) under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS) seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.94/2025 of Koppa Police Station, Mandya, registered on 05.09.2025 under S.125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the management of Divyajyothi School. A 4th-standard student lost vision in one eye after fellow children allegedly sprayed coloured sparklers/confetti inside School Bus No.5 on 01.08.2025; disability assessed at 40% to the whole body. The complaint alleged negligence of the management in failing to ensure adequate supervision, an attendant, and a functional CCTV in the bus. Held, dismissing the petition: (i) an FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all facts, offences, evidence and legal consequences; its purpose is to set the criminal law in motion, and the allegations taken at face value warrant investigation; (ii) a school undertaking transportation of children assumes a duty of care heightened, not diminished, by their tender age; under the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.,) (Amendment) Rules, 2018 (S.1C), attendants must accompany tender-age students till the last stop, and schools cannot show a hands-off attitude to this statutory mandate; (iii) a school bus is an extension of the school itself; (iv) whether there was an attendant or security, whether the CCTV was functional or merely ornamental, whether prohibited or dangerous material was carried, whether safety instructions were issued and enforced, and whether supervision failed are all matters which cry for investigation; (v) the act of another child does not absolve the management at the threshold, culpability being delineable only after investigation; the complaint meets the ingredients of S.125(a) BNS. Petition rejected; investigation to ensue.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13718 OF 2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

DIVYAJYOTHI SCHOOL MANAGEMENT, REP. BY ITS HEAD MASTER, A JIBY ANTHONY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, O/AT- DIVYA JYOTHI SCHOOL, GOLLARADODDI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBALI, MADDURU TALUKU, MANDYA, KARNATAKA-571 425.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. NITIN A M, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KOPPA POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶17

SMT. SHILPA CHANDRA SHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A JOGIGOWDA BADAVANE TOWN, KOPPA HOBALI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. D.A. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) TO QUASH THE CRIME/FIR NO.94/2025 AS FOR THE OFFENCES

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

UNDER SECTION 125(a) BNS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE THE KOPPA P.S., MANDYA DATED 05.09.2025, WHICH IS BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) & JMFC COURT, MADDUR, MANDYA DIST.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner-Management of the Divyajyothi School is before the Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.94/2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 125(a) of the BNS, 2023, registered on 05.09.2025.

¶28

Heard Sri.Nitin A.M, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Waheeda M.M, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri.D.A.Shivakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶33

3.1. The son of the second respondent–complainant, a

¶34

child studying in the 4th standard in the petitioner–school, was travelling home in School Bus No.5 on 01.08.2025 along with several other children. During the journey, some children are alleged to have carried and sprayed coloured confetti/sparklers inside the bus, one such spray having entered the eyes of the complainant’s child. What may have appeared, at first blush, to be a childish mischief or a fleeting accident, allegedly culminated in a calamity of lifelong consequence: the child lost vision in one eye and suffered disability assessed at 40% to the whole body.

¶35

3.2. The complaint, lodged on 05.09.2025, alleges that this tragedy was not merely the result of an isolated act of another child, but was occasioned by the negligence of the school management in failing to ensure adequate supervision inside the school bus, in failing to provide an attendant, and in failing to ensure that the CCTV camera installed in the bus was functional. The registration of the crime has brought the petitioner before this Court. A Co-ordinate Bench, by order

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

dated 27.10.2025, stayed further investigation against the petitioner–school, and the said interim order continues to operate.

¶39

SUBMISSIONS:

¶40

PETITIONER:

¶41

Learned counsel Sri.Nitin M, appearing for the petitioner, submits that all the necessary precautions had been taken by presence of an attender in the bus, the installation of a CCTV and what other steps had to be taken, the school is not aware and the unfortunate incident though has happened where the child has lost his eye, the management cannot be hauled for the act of another child or act that has happened inside a school bus after the hours of the school, is his submission. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.

¶42

STATE:

¶43

Contrariwise, the learned HCGP would take this

¶44

Court through the papers of investigation to demonstrate that the CCTV though was installed, was not functioning. The

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

attender was not present and therefore, these are matters which have to be investigated into, more so in the light of the fact of a child losing the eye.

¶48

COMPLAINANT:

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that the responsibility of the school does not begin and end within the four walls of the classroom. It travels with the child from the time the child is received into the custody of the school until the child is safely restored to the hands of the parent. The school bus is not a detached island beyond institutional responsibility; it is an extension of the school itself. He would further submit that if investigation itself is interdicted at this stage, not only would criminal accountability be foreclosed, but even the complainant’s pursuit of consequential remedies, including compensation, would be seriously prejudiced.

¶50

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

CONSIDERATION:

¶55

The facts narrated hereinbefore are, in their broad contours, not in serious dispute. The incident occurred on 01.08.2025 in School Bus No.5 belonging to the petitioner– school. Several children were travelling in the bus. It is alleged that two or three children had carried coloured sparklers/confetti and sprayed the same inside the bus, which entered the eyes of the complainant’s son. The child, on being dropped near his residence, came running and crying of burning sensation in his eyes. The mother, initially unaware of the gravity of the injury, later took the child for medical treatment, only to be told that the injury had caused irreversible damage. The allegation, therefore, is not of a transient hurt; it is of a childhood permanently scarred.

¶56

The treatment that the child undertook resulted in rendering a disability certificate. The disability certificate reads as follows:

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

A unique disability card is rendered depicting the child to have permanent disability. The card is as follows:

¶61

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Based upon the said incident and the result of the

¶64

child becoming permanently disabled to the tune of 40% to the whole body, a complaint comes to be registered alleging gross negligence on the part of the management of the school. I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint registered on 05.09.2025. The complaint reads as follows:

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

"ರವ��ೆ , ��ೕ� ಸ� ಇ��ೆಕ�� ರವರು, �ೊಪ� ��ೕ� �ಾ�ೆ . �ೊಪ�, ಮದೂ�ರು �ಾಲೂ!ಕು

¶69

#ಂದ

¶70

%&ಾ� ಚಂದ()ೇಖ� ಈ,�ೇ� �ೋಂ. ಚಂದ()ೇಖ� 34 ವಷ., ಈ/ಗ ಜ2ಾಂಗ, ಗೃ45, 6ಾ� 7ಾಸ, 8ೋ9�ೌಡ ಬ=ಾವ�ೆ �ೊಪ� >ೌ� ಮತು@ 6ೋಬ, ಮದೂ�ರು �ಾ&ೊ!ೕಕು, ಮಂಡA B&ೆ! C ನಂ. 9901814323 ಸEಂತ FGಾಸ:-�ೆಲವರ�ೊಪ� �ಾ(ಮ ಮತು@ ಅಂIೆ ಅJK6ಾಲೂರು 6ೋಬ, 6ಾನಗL �ಾ&ೊ!ೕಕು 6ಾ7ೇ� B&ೆ!

¶71

MಾನANೇ,

¶72

Fಷಯ:-PವA8ೊAೕQ ಆಂಗ! MಾದAಮ )ಾ&ೆ �ೊಲ!ರSೊ/T, �ೊಪ� 6ೋU, ಮದೂ�ರು �ಾ&ೊ!ೕಕು ಈ )ಾ&ೆಯ ಆಡ,ತ ಮಂಡ,ಯ ಮುಖAಸVರ Wೇಜ7ಾWಾ � ತನದ ಬ�ೆX ದೂರು.

¶73

ಈ YೕಲKಂಡ FGಾಸದ�! 7ಾಸ7ಾ9ರು�ೆ@ೕ2ೆ . ಈ�ೆX ಸುMಾರು ಸುMಾರು 13 ವಷ.ಗ,ಂದ 2ಾನು ಮತು@ ನನZ ಕುಟುಂಬ �ೊಪ� >ೌ\�ೆ ಬಂದು ಇ&ೆ! 7ಾಸ7ಾ9ದು � ೊಂಡು Bೕವನ ನ=ೆಸು�ಾ@ ಇSೆ�ೕ7ೆ . ನನ�ೆ ಇಬ]ರು ಗಂಡು ಮಕK,ದು� 12ೇ Nೋ4^ ಕುMಾ� _.ಐ ಆ9ರು�ಾ@Nೆ . 22ೇ ಮಗ2ಾದ �ಾQ.a ಕ&ಾAb .ಐ ಆ9ರು�ಾ@Nೆ . ಇಬ]ರನುZ �ೊಲ!ರSೊ/T �ಾ(ಮದ�!ರುವ PವA 8ೊAೕQ ಇಂ9!ೕc dೕ/ಯe )ಾ&ೆಯ�! ಓದುQ@ರು�ಾ@Nೆ . Pನ\ತA ನನZ ಇಬ]ರೂ ಮಕKಳh )ಾ&ೆಯ ಬ�ನ ನಂಬ� 5 ರ�! )ಾ&ೆ�ೆ 6ೋ9 ಬಂದು MಾಡುQ@ರು�ಾ@Nೆ . ಈ9ೕರು7ಾಗ P2ಾಂಕ 01-08-2025 ರ ಶುಕ(7ಾರ ಮ2ೆಯನುZ Uಟು� )ಾ&ೆ�ೆ ಕ,_ದು� ನಂತರ

¶74

10 -

¶75

NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

)ಾ&ೆಯನುZ Uಟು� 7ಾಪಸು� ಮ2ೆ�ೆ ಬರು7ಾಗ ಬ_�ನ ಬ, 2ಾನು ಮಕKಳನುZ ಇ,�ೊಳjಲು ಸುMಾರು ಸಂ8ೆ ಸಮಯ 04-20 6ೋSಾಗ ಅ�! ನನZ ಮಗನು ಕಣುl ಉ� ಎಂದು WಾAಗನುZ ಅ&ೆ! UoಾJ ಓ/ 6ೋದನು. 2ಾನು ಮ2ೆ�ೆ ಬಂದು ನನZ ಮಗನನುZ �ೇಳ&ಾ9 ಬ�ನ�! ಮ2ೆ�ೆ ಬರು7ಾಗ ಬ_�ನ�! ಇದ� ಮಕKಳh pಾNೋ ಬಣlದ dಂಚನುZ ಎರqದರು. ಎಂದು ನನ�ೆ 6ೇ,ದನು. 2ಾವrಗಳh ಕ5lನ�! oೇ�ರುವ dಂಚು 6ೊರಬಂದNೆ ಸ�6ೋಗಬಹುSೆಂದು tಾF_ pಾವrSೇ ಆಸ��ೆ(�ೆ �ೋ�_ರುವrPಲ!.

¶78

ನಂತರ P2ಾಂಕ 02-08-2025 ರಂದು 2ಾನು ಮತು@ ನಮu ಯಜMಾನNಾದ ಚಂದ()ೇಖ� ರವರು ನನZ ಮಗನನುZ �ಾ�ನ�! ಮಂಡAದ�!ರುವ Q(ೕ2ೇತ( ಕ5lನ ಆಸ��ೆ(�ೆ ಕNೆದು�ೊಂಡು 6ೋSೆವr. ಅ�!ನ 7ೈದAರು qJ�ೆ�ಯನುZ \ೕ/ 6ೆqxನ qJ�ೆ��ಾ9 2ಾNಾಯಣ 2ೇ�ಾ(ಲಯ Wೆಂಗಳy��ೆ ಕNೆದು�ೊಂಡು 6ೋಗಲು ಸೂq_ದರು. ನಂತರ 2ಾNಾಯಣ ಆಸ��ೆ(ಯ�! P2ಾಂಕ 03-08-2025 �ಂದ 05-08-2025 ರವNೆ�ೆ 2ಾNಾಯನ 2ೇ�ಾ(ಲಯದ�! qJ�ೆ�ಯನುZ �ೊ/Sೆವr. ನಂತರ 7ೈದAರು ನನZ ಮಗ\�ೆ Yದು,�ೆ ಸಂಬಂP_ದಂ�ೆ ಇ2ೆ�z� ಆ9Sೆ ಮಕKಳ ಆಸ��ೆ(�ೆ ಕNೆದು�ೊಂಡು 6ೋಗಲು ಸೂq_ದ YೕNೆ�ೆ ಇನೂZ 6ೆqxನ qJ�ೆ��ೆಂದು ರಂಗSೊNೈ YCೕ�ಯL ಆಸ��ೆ( ಭನಶಂಕ��ೆ ಕgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ 6ೋSೆವr. ನಂತರ ಅ�!ಂದ ಮ�ೆ@ P2ಾಂಕ 09-08-2025 ಋಂಧು ಮ�ೆ@ 2ಾNಾಯಣ 2ೇ�ಾ(ಲಯ ಆಸ��ೆ(�ೆ ಬಂದು qJ�ೆ�ಯನುZ �ೊ/ಸುQ@Sೆ�ೕವr. ನನZ ಮಗನನುZ ಪ�ೕ~ದ 7ೈದAರು ನನZ ಮಗ\�ೆ ದೃ•� ಮ�ೆ@ ಬರಲು oಾದAFಲ!7ೆಂದು 6ೇ,ದ YೕNೆ�ೆ ಈ ಒಂದು ಅವಘಡ�ೆK (ಅಪ‚ತ�ೆK). ಇನುZ WೆGೆಯ WೇJದ� ನನZ ಮಗನ BೕವನವನುZ ಅQ J�ಯ ವಯ�ನ�! ಸಂಕಷ��ೆK ತ,jದ )ಾ¯Á ಆಡ,ತ ಮಂಡ,ಯ ಮುಖAಸVರ Fರುದƒ �ಾನೂನು ಕ(ಮವನುZ ಜರು9ಸWೇ�ೇಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮuನುZ �ಾ(„.�ೊಳhjQ@Sೆ�ೕ2ೆ .

¶79

ನನZ ಮಗನನುZ 2ೋ/�ೊಳjಲು pಾರು ಇಲ!ದ �ಾರಣ 2ಾ2ೆ ಆತನನುZ ಆಸ��ೆ(ಯ�! 2ೋ/�ೊಳhjQ@ದು� ನಂತರ )ಾ&ೆಯ ಆಡ,ತ

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

ಮಂಡ,ಯವರು pಾವrದಕೂK ಸ�ಂPಸದ �ಾರಣ ಈ Pನ ತಡ7ಾ9 ಬಂದು ದೂರು \ೕಡುQ@Sೆ�ೕ2ೆ ."

¶84

The complaint may not be an elaborate legal thesis. It need not be. An FIR is not expected to be an encyclopaedia of all facts, all offences, all evidence and all 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 to weigh the defence of the school against the allegations of the complainant. The question is whether the allegations, taken at their face value, warrant investigation. The answer, in the considered view of this Court, must be in the affirmative.

¶85

A school which undertakes to transport children assumes a duty of care that is heightened, not diminished, by the tender age of those entrusted to it. In fact, the State through promulgation of the Rules called the Karnataka Educational Institutions (Classification, Regulation and Prescription of Curricula, etc.,) (Amendment) Rules, 2018, regulates the educational institutions including transportation.

¶86

12 -

¶87

NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

The mandatory requirement is indicated in section 1C which

¶90

deals with transportation and reads as follows:

¶91

What is mandated in law is, there should be attendants in the bus in which students of tender age are transported to their residences from the school. The management of the school should oversee whether the teacher or attendant accompanies the students till the last stop, and a

¶92

responsible person/security to oversee the movement of the vehicles in front of the school for drop/pickup of the children.

¶93

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

This is the mandate of the statute. The schools cannot violate

¶96

the said mandate of the statute. A child which travels in a school bus which is an extension of the school itself, cannot be left high and dry till the child from the school reaches the house even if it is the last stop. The schools cannot show a hands off to the responsibility of compliance with the mandate of the statute.

¶97

14. Therefore, the safety of children in a school

¶98

bus is not a matter of charity or convenience; it is a solemn obligation mandated under the Statute as well. Whether there was an attendant in the bus, a security or whether the CCTV camera was installed, even if installed, was merely ornamental or functional, 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 are all matters which cry for investigation.

¶99

14 -

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

The offence alleged is the one punishable under

¶103

Section 125(a) of the BNS, which reads as follows:

¶104

" 125. Act endangering life or personal safety of others .—Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both, but—

¶105

( a ) where hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both; "

¶106

(Emphasis supplied)

¶107

Section 125(a) penalizes any person who acts rashly or negligently that it endangers human life or personal safety which results in injury to someone else. Section 125(a) corresponds to Sections 336 and 337 of the earlier regime-the IPC. To attract the mischief of rashness or negligence against a person, such act of omission or commission must be attributable to the said accused. The complaint clearly meets the ingredients of Section 125(a). Therefore, investigation in the least is a must.

¶108

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:31211 CRL.P No. 13718 of 2025

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

The contention that the act was that of another child and, therefore, the management must stand completely absolved at the threshold, cannot be accepted at this stage. The precise contours of culpability, if any, can be delineated only after investigation. The petitioner may ultimately demonstrate absence of criminal negligence. But that conclusion cannot be recorded today by strangulating the investigation at its inception, especially when the incident has resulted in permanent disability to a child, a child of tender

¶111

age, yet to behold the full bloom of life, has been condemned to live with permanent visual impairment.

¶112

In that light, finding no merit in this petition at this juncture, the petition stands rejected. Investigation must ensue.

¶113

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶114

CBC

¶115

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Divyajyothi School Management v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divyajyothi School Management v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saptarishi Biswas Vs State by Devarajeevanahalli P.S

Sri Narayanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Mohan Kumar Ks Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr Manoj Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

N Chandrashekhar @ Chandra @ Kotanotu Chandra Vs State by

Sri N. Gagan Deep Vs State of Karnataka