Karnataka HC Denies Quashing Complaint Against School, Holds Child Communicated With The School Prior to His Tragic Death

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash a Criminal Complaint against the Director, Principal and Hostel Warden of the Karumbaiah Academy for Learning and Sports School in Gonikoppal, Karnataka for allegedly instigating a 15-year-old student to commit suicide by punishing/ torturing him for bringing alcohol to school and by not allowing him to take his examination despite the assurance. 

The Single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted that "A parting observation in the case at hand would not be inapt. An unfortunate incident has taken the precious life of a young boy. The incident is a subject of discipline in the school."  Refusing to quash the complaint, the Judge said "It is to be noticed that the boy was in communication with the school even up to 15 minutes before his death. Thus, there is proximity with the commission of suicide. Therefore, prima facie, the ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC are met, which would become an offence under Section 305 of the IPC. Whether it is instigation, goading or otherwise are all a matter of trial. The Court has now taken cognizance of the offence. It is too premature in the teeth of the aforesaid facts to even consider the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. There is no circumstance that would warrant interference by granting a pardon to the acts of the school. I am of the prima facie view that if the proceedings before the concerned Court are interfered and quashed at this stage it would be putting a premium on all the acts of the school without permitting them to face trial."

Senior Advocate P.P. Hegde along with Advocate Venkatesh Somareddi appeared for the School authority while the parents were represented by Advocate C.Prashanth Chinnappa and the State was represented by the High Court Government Pleader Mahesh Shetty.

Background: Nihal Bidappa, a student in 9th grade committed suicide on October 24, 2022, while waiting for the online link to the School examination which was to be sent by the School authorities. In the complaint filed, it was stated that Nihal was suspended from the school for 21 days for allegedly bringing alcohol into a water bottle on the school premises. Since exams were ensuing, the parents pleaded, with the school, to allow the child to write his examination and on which assurance was made that a link that would be sent to the boy to write the exam. On the day of the examination, the boy sat in front of the computer waiting for the link, but the link was not sent and the boy thereafter due to frustration committed suicide.

The school authorities contended before the Court that the boy was mischievous and had to be counselled not once or twice, but thrice. It was submitted that it is in the normal course of inculcating discipline into the students that measures like suspending the student, for a particular period or debarring him from writing the exam are imposed. They stated that no fault can be found with the school as they have neither instigated nor goaded for the act of the boy and there is no proximity of any incident with the death of the boy.

While on the other hand, the parents submitted that the boy has been tortured for close to two months. It was said that one Kishan, a senior to Nihil had asked him to get alcohol to the school and Kishan and Nihil both tendered an apology on the same day, for the said act. However, Kishan was left off but the Nihil was punished. It was further added that the ‘B’ report is filed as the school being rich and influential has prevailed upon the jurisdictional Police to record statements according to what the school wanted and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has rejected the ‘B’ report and appropriately taken cognizance of the offence.

The High Court after considering the submissions refused to quash the proceedings and noted that "In the light of the judgment in the case of Mahendra K.C. V. State Of Karnataka (2022) 2 SCC 129 and finding that ingredients of Section 107 of the IPC are clearly met in the case at hand for it to become an offence under Section 305 of the IPC albeit, prima facie, there is no warrant of interference. The same goes with all the other offences as well." 

Further, directing the schools to reconsider the harsh actions imposed on students, the Bench said, "Therefore, the schools which are inculcating harsh discipline should think of a paradigm shift, so that the lives of young souls, who do not have the capacity to think of the consequences of any action sometimes may lead to devastating steps like the one found in the case at hand. Such cases would form illustrations of negative self evaluation and the children feeling bad about themselves. The Educational Institutions therefore, have to recognize this malady of over/harsh discipline, remedy the wrong in a different manner, so that the lives of young souls would be saved. It is not the case of just one student, but, even one student. The institutions should also recognize that the age old principles have now changed, I mean spare the rod and spoil the child has metamorphosed into spare the rod and teach the child".

Cause Title: Mrs. Gauramma and Ors. v. State Of Karnataka and Anr.

Click here to read/download the Order