Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against School Principal in Minor Student Death Case; Holds Allegations Disclose Prima Facie Offences Under Section 304 IPC and JJ Act
Case Name: Dharampal Guleria v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 04 May 2026
Citation: CRM-M-20538-2026
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Bench: Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS cannot be exercised to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations and material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case requiring trial. The Court refused to quash the FIR against a school principal in connection with the death of a minor student in a school bus incident, observing that allegations regarding safety lapses, tampering of CCTV footage and post-incident conduct required evidentiary examination during trial.
Summary: The petitioner, Principal of BCM School, Ludhiana, sought quashing of FIR No. 360 dated 16.12.2024 registered initially under Sections 281 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and subsequently altered to offences under Sections 105, 238 and 61 BNS along with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Charges were later framed under Sections 304, 201 and 120-B IPC along with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
The prosecution case arose out of the death of a seven-year-old child, Amayra, in a school bus incident that occurred on 16.12.2024 within the school premises. Investigation revealed that the school bus was allegedly carrying more students than its permitted seating capacity and that there was neither a conductor nor a lady attendant present in the vehicle. The driver disclosed during police remand that he moved the bus under the impression that the child had safely deboarded, following which the child came under the front tyre of the bus.
During investigation, the police seized CCTV DVRs, collected forensic evidence and recorded witness statements. It was alleged that after the incident, blood stains within the school premises were cleaned and efforts were made to manipulate CCTV footage to falsely show that the occurrence had taken place outside the school premises.
The petitioner argued that he had been falsely implicated despite having no direct role in the incident. It was contended that the transport facility was privately arranged by parents and not operated by the school management. The petitioner further claimed that he had taken prompt steps to provide medical assistance to the child and inform the police authorities. According to the petitioner, the allegations were based merely on hearsay and had been exaggerated under public pressure by subsequently adding more serious offences.
The State opposed the petition by contending that the petitioner, being the school principal, was responsible for ensuring safety of students within the school premises. Reliance was placed upon witness statements alleging that concerns regarding use of a single gate for buses and children had earlier been brought to the petitioner’s notice but were ignored. It was further alleged that the petitioner was involved in tampering with CCTV footage and supervising cleaning of blood stains immediately after the occurrence.
While dismissing the petition, the High Court reiterated the settled principles governing exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS corresponding to Section 482 CrPC. The Court observed that at the stage of quashing, it is not permissible to conduct a mini trial or meticulously evaluate the defence of the accused. The only requirement is to examine whether the allegations, if accepted at face value, disclose commission of cognizable offences.
The Court held that the material collected during investigation prima facie disclosed lapses in ensuring safety protocols within the school premises and also raised serious questions regarding alleged tampering of CCTV footage and post-incident conduct. These issues, according to the Court, required appreciation of evidence and could only be adjudicated during trial.
The High Court further held that even though the complainant expressed no objection to quashing of the FIR against the petitioner, such concession could not by itself justify quashing in a case involving serious offences concerning death of a minor child and wider issues of public safety and accountability.
Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, charge-sheet and consequential proceedings, holding that disputed questions regarding the petitioner’s role, responsibility and alleged involvement could only be adjudicated upon after evidence is led before the Trial Court.