IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the rebuttable nature of statutory presumptions, the concept of vicarious liability, and the necessity of mens rea and actus reus for criminal liability.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today.

2. By way of present petition under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(b) To quash and set aside the impugned FIR being CR No.11198001230318 of 2023 dated 11.06.2023 registered with Neelambaug Police Station, Bhavnagar, Charge-sheet dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-A) and Sessions Case No.107 of 2023 pending before the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar and any subsequent proceedings arising thereto;”

3. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is as under:

3.1 Present petitioner is the father of juvenile. It is the case of the petitioner that on 11.06.2023 at around 6.30 a.m., the complainant was informed by his friend that his father met with an accident while he was driving his Activa and one Maruti Swift Car No.GJ-04-CA-6433 dashed with the Activa and dead body of the deceased father of complainant was lying near the front tyre of the said Swift Car. In this regard, complaint came to be filed. It is the case of prosecution that son of present petitioner was driving the said Swift Car and admittedly he was minor at the relevant point of time and present petitioner is the father of minor juvenile. In this connection, offence being CR No.11198001230318 of 2023 came to be registered with Neelambaug Police Station, District Bhavnagar. After the investigation, evidence came to be collected and charge-sheet came to be filed against the juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board which culminated into Criminal Case No.129/2023 while against the father – present petitioner the same culminated into Sessions Case No.107/2023 which is pending before the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar. Initially, the complaint came to be filed under Section 279 and 304(A) of the IPC read with Sections 177 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act against one Abdul Rehman Hanifbhai Teliya (for short “juvenile”) wherein it is alleged that though the present petitioner being father of the juvenile was knowing that juvenile is a minor, he has given the key of car to his son and subsequently report came to be filed to add section 304 of the IPC read with Sections 181(3), 189, 199A(1), 199A(2), 199A(3), 199A(4) and 199A(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said report came to be accepted by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and subsequently sections came to be added accordingly.

4. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed assisted by learned advocate Mr. Ruchit Vyas for the petitioner and learned APP Mr. Manan Mehta for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. I.H. Syed for the petitioner has submitted that present petitioner is the father of juvenile accused and in absence of any evidence, present petitioner is falsely enroped in the offence mainly based on the presumption even there is neither any proof of any negligence on the part of the present petitioner nor on the part of juvenile. Even, the proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act is tried being Criminal Case No.129/2023 wherein three witnesses have been examined and no one has supported the case of prosecution and all have turned hostile. Even, in the present case also, settlement took place and even witnesses do not have supported the case of prosecution. In view of the above, no purpose would be served to continue such litigation which is nothing but abuse of process of law. Even, perusing the entire investigation papers, no evidence is collected to show that the said car was being driven by the juvenile. Merely because the complainant and people gathered at the hospital, at the instance of people, the petitioner is falsely enroped in the offence. Lastly, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that even if for the s