IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
Khairunnisa, W/o. Of Hussain – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Crl.MC No. 4758 Of 2023
Decided On : 20-06-2023
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 5, 180, 199A(1)(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 336 - Offences by juveniles – Minor riding Rash and negligent - Guardian of a juvenile can be proceeded against only if a juvenile has committed the offense under the Motor Vehicles Act (Para 7).
Finding of the Court: Court guardian of a juvenile can be proceeded against only if a juvenile has committed the offense under Motor Vehicles Act. In the case on hand, there is no case for the prosecution that juvenile has committed any offense. No proceeding has been initiated against the juvenile either - Petitioner cannot be proceeded against for having committed an offense under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER :
The petitioner herein is the accused in S.T.No.1244/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Tirur. The aforesaid case has arisen from Crime No.391/2023 of Kalpakanchery Police Station registered inter alia under Section 336 of IPC r/w Section 5, 180, 199A(1)(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution allegation is that on 11.04.2023, the petitioner permitted a minor to ride a scooter bearing Registration No.KL-55-N-9771. The minor is alleged to have ridden the bike in a rash and negligent manner, endangering the life and personal safety of the general public. It is also alleged that as the offense has been committed by a juvenile, the petitioner, in his capacity as the guardian, is liable to be proceeded against under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. Sri.P.C.Anilkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the initiation of prosecution proceedings against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process. According to the petitioner, a learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion to consider identical issues in Crl. M.C.No.7479 of 2022 and, after evaluating the entire facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion that none of the offenses would be made out.
4. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced.
6. I find that identical issue was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Crl. M.C.No.7479 of 2022. The observations and findings in paragraphs Nos.4 to 7 of the judgment are extracted below:
“4. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that none of the offences alleged against him would be attracted against him. The crux of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act requires that an offence must have been committed by a Juvenile and only thereupon the charge under Section 199A can be imposed upon the guardian of such juvenile. It is pointed out that, in this case, no such offences are charged against the juvenile and in the absence of such prosecution, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be continued. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the same.
5. After considering the relevant aspects, I find some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows :
“199-A. Offences by juveniles.--(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a juvenile, the guardian of such juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall render such guardian or owner liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, the Court shall presume that the use of the motor vehicle by the juvenile was with the consent of the guardian of such juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle, as the case may be.
(2) In addition to the penalty under sub-section (1), such guardian or owner shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with a fine of twenty-five thousand rupees.
(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall not apply to such guardian or owner if the juvenile committing the offence had been granted a learner's licence under section 8 or a driving licence and was operating a motor vehicle which such juvenile was licensed to operate.
(4) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a juvenile, the registration of the motor vehicle used in the commission of the offence shall be cancelled for a period of twelve months.
(5) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a juvenile, then, notwithstandin
SupremeToday
Guardian of a juvenile can be proceeded against only if a juvenile has committed the offense under Motor Vehicles Act.
A guardian's liability under the Motor Vehicles Act is contingent on the commission of an offense by a juvenile, necessitating proof of both the offense and the juvenile's age.
Prosecution against a vehicle owner for juvenile offences under the Motor Vehicles Act requires prior registration of a crime against the juvenile.
Prosecutions under Section 199A of the MV Act require prior registration of juvenile offenses and associated reports.
Prosecution against guardians for juvenile offences requires timely registration of crime and filing of Social Background Report.
Prosecution of vehicle owner for juvenile offences requires timely filing of reports; failure leads to unsustainable charges.
The offence under section 199A of the MV Act is independent and can be initiated without a charge against the juvenile for petty offences.
In criminal offence, generally, no one can be held responsible for an offence committed by other except in case of criminal conspiracy or abetment.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.