Karnataka High Court Rejects ₹2 Lakh Settlement In Child Drowning Case, Says His Life Can't Be Reduced To Mere Monetary Figure
Court eventually directed total compensation of ₹6.2 Lakh.
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to accept a settlement amount of ₹2 lakh offered by the accused in a case concerning the drowning of a two-and-a-half-year-old child at a construction site, observing that the life of a child “radiant with unfulfilled promise and infinite possibilities” could not be reduced to a monetary figure that failed to reflect the enormity of the loss. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 246]
Justice M. Nagaprasanna subsequently quashed the criminal proceedings only after the accused enhanced the compensation package and agreed to provide sustained financial support to the bereaved family.
While allowing the writ petition filed by the accused persons, the Court observed,
“…The Courts do not merely adjudicate disputes; at times they become silent custodians of equity where law intersects with human suffering. The judicial process cannot restore a life that has been irretrievably lost, nor can any monetary recompense assuage the anguish of parents. Yet, where parties seek closure and the law permits such settlement, the Court bears the solemn obligation of ensuring that justice is not reduced to a mere commercial bargain, but assumes the character of meaningful restitution.”
The minor had allegedly wandered into the construction site and drowned in the water tank left for construction activities. The complaint was hence preferred by the father of the deceased child stating that the petitioners have been rash and negligent, punishable under Section 106(1) of the BNS, resulting in his child's death.
“…It is an admitted position that the deceased child was neither employed by nor entrusted to the care, custody or supervision of the petitioners. The child had merely entered the premises from the adjoining property. It is in that factual backdrop, that the petitioners contend that the foundational ingredients constituting criminal rashness or negligence… was not attracted”, the court initially noted the contentions raised by the petitioners seeking the quashing of FIR.
After the initial proposal was rejected, the petitioners, as per the court's direction, approached it again with revised terms of settlement proposing a sum of Rs 5 lakhs with an undertaking to pay Rs 10k every month for the succeeding twelve months, amounting to a total pf Rs 6,20,000/-.
The single judge bench noted that the complainant was a daily wage mason who is looking after two other young children.
“…Experience teaches Courts that a substantial lump sum, placed in the hands of an impoverished family struggling for daily survival, may be consumed by immediate necessities, leaving little for the long-term welfare of the surviving children. Compassion, therefore, demanded not merely disbursement but preservation…”, the court noted its reason for stipulating a structured payment mechanism.
Accordingly, the court directed that a demand draft to the tune of Rs 5 lakhs be deposited under the Post Office Monthly Income Scheme in the name of the complainant and the monthly interest accrued under the scheme will be made available to the family for an initial period of five years.
“…Such recurring income shall be utilised exclusively for the welfare, education and upbringing of the surviving son and daughter. Upon the daughter attaining the age of majority, the investment may thereafter continue to remain available for withdrawal by the complainant in accordance with law…”, the Court recorded in the order.
Any default in the undertaking provided y the petitioners would invite the revival of criminal proceedings, the court reminded while quashing the FIR before ACMM Bengaluru.
Case Title: Velu @ Velmayil Somu & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: WP 18978/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 246