Prosecution under the Motor Vehicles Act requires the juvenile to be charged; without this, charges against the accused are unsustainable.

ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.439 of 2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Manjeri, arising out of Crime No.186 of 2023 of Kalikavu Police Station, Malappuram. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'I.P.C.') apart from Sections 199 (A)(1) and 199(A) (2) r/w Section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'M.V.Act').

2. According to the prosecution, on 21.03.2023, the accused permitted a minor to ride a Bike bearing Registration No.KL-71-A-3410 and thereby committed the offences alleged.

3. Sri.Abdul Hadi M.P., the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that none of the offences alleged against the petitioner are made out since the alleged juvenile has not been proceeded against.

4. Sri.Ranjith T.R., the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application and submitted that the allegations can be appreciated only after trial and therefore invoking the remedy under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.is not proper.

5. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 336 I.P.C. and Sections 199 (A)(1) and 199(A)(2) r/w Section 180 of the M.V.Act. Admittedly, the juvenile has not been proceeded against. Section 199A of the M.V.Act requires as a condition precedent the prosecution of the juvenile which is evident from the very wording 'where an offence under this Act has been committed by a juvenile' used in the provision. Since concededly the juvenile has not been proceeded against in the instant case, the offence under Section 199A of M.V. Act cannot be attracted.

6. As far as Section 336 I.P.C. is concerned, prosecution has no case that any overt act was committed by the petitioner. The rashness alleged is the driving of the vehicle in a manner causing danger to the society. Petitioner has, again, concededly, not driven the vehicle. It is not the case of the prosecution that the rashness ought to be attributed to anything else other than driving. In such circumstances petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offences under I.P.C. as well.

7. I am also fortified in view of the decision in Crl.M.C.No.7479 of 2022 of this Court.

Thus the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.439 of 2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Manjeri is an abuse of the process of court and it is quashed.

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C.is allowed.