1. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 635/2010 of Konny Police Station. The offences alleged in the crime are those punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘I.P.C.’) read with Section 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.8.2010 at about 8.30 hours an Alto car bearing Regn.No.KL.3T 2803 driven by the petitioner through Vellapara-Chinamukku public road from west to east in a rash and negligent manner hit on an Activa scooter bearing Regn.No.KL-03 917 driven through Konny-Pathanapuram public road. In the accident, the rider of the Activa scooter and the pillion rider on it sustained injuries.

CW2, the pillion rider in the Activa Scooter was a minor child aged 12 years. Therefore, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta found the case exclusively triable by the Children’s court and thereupon, vide proceedings No.151/2010, committed the matter to the District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the designated Children’s Court as per Section 25 of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’). The certified copy of the order in C.P.No.151/2010 is appended along with this petition as Annexure A1.

4. The District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta received the case which was committed to it and numbered it as S.C.No.227/2011.

5. Annexure A1 committed order dated 15.12.2010 is sought to be quashed in this petition on the reason that while passing the said order, the court has committed a grave error. The copy of the final report in Crime No.635/2010 dated 17.9.2010 is also appended along with this application as Annexure A2. It is contended that the final report will in no way divulge any offence committed in violation of the child rights. In the case on hand, the only allegation was that the petitioner due to his rash and negligent driving of an Alto car, caused injury to CW2, who is a child. Therefore, there cannot be said to be any intentional violation of child right as contemplated by Section 25 of the Act and it cannot be construed as an offence infringing the right of the child. It is contended by the counsel that in the said circumstances, the committal court is absolutely unjustified in committing the case on its file to the District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which is the designated Children’s Court. The case ought to have been tried by the committal court itself.

6. Sri. Philip. T. Varghese, counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondent were heard.

7. Sri. Philip. T. Varghese, learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed this Court citing Abdul Aziz. M. v. Circle Inspector of Police (2011 (4) KLT 1003) in support of the grounds raised in the petition. It is contended by him that the minor child was injured in a motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the petitioner and the rights of the child cannot be said to be violated in the accident. According to him, in the aforesaid circumstances, the case on hand cannot be taken as exclusively triable by the Children’s Court, but one triable by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta itself.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that infringement of the right of a child is involved in the case and therefore, District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta being the designated Children’s Court is the authorized court to deal with the matter. According to him, therefore, the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta is perfectly justified in committing the case to the District and Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta by Annexure A1 passed in C.P.No.151/2010 and interference is uncalled for.

9. In this connection, it is pertinent to have a look at the definition of the offences involved in the crime. Section 279 I.P.C. provides for punishment for rash driving or riding on a public