Prosecution against a vehicle owner for juvenile offences under the Motor Vehicles Act requires prior registration of a crime against the juvenile.

O R D E R

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.2010/2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, which has originated from Crime No.1012/2024 registered by the Vadakkekad Police Station, Thrissur, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Section 125 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023 and Sections 5, 180, 199A (1) and 199A (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, (‘MV Act’, in short).

2. The gravamen of the prosecution allegation is that; on 08.11.2024, the accused had permitted a 17 year old child to drive his scooter bearing registration No.KL-46G- 1995 through the Kunnamkulam-Aalthara road. Thus, the accused had committed the above offences.

3. The petitioner asserts that he has not given his vehicle to any person as alleged by the prosecution. As the commission of offences under Section 199A (1) of the MV Act by juvenile is a mandatory requirement to attract the offences under (2), 5 and 180 of the MV Act, and there being no material to substantiate the commission of offences by a juvenile, it cuts at the very root of the prosecution case. Even though Annexure A1 FIR was registered on 08.11.2024, no Social Background Report of the juvenile in Form No.1 as envisaged under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, (‘Rules’, in short), has been filed till date. Due to non filing of the above report and the non- registration of a crime against the juvenile, the prosecution against the petitioner is unsustainable in law. Hence, Annexure A1 FIR, Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in S.T.No.2010/2024 may be quashed.

4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the Crl.M.C. He relied on the decision of this Court inSharafudheen v. State of Kerala [2024 (4) KHC 405] , to substantiate his contention that, a prosecution against the guardian of a juvenile or owner of a motor vehicle under Section 199A of the MV Act can be initiated only if the information regarding the commission of an offence by the juvenile has been recorded in the General Diary and such information has been followed by a Social Background Report of a child in Form No.1 to the Juvenile Justice Board without any undue delay. In any given case, the final report in relation to the offence allegedly committed by the juvenile ought to be submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board within two months from the date of information in the General Diary.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that, although the alleged incident took place on 08.11.2024, no Social Background Report of the alleged juvenile has till date been filed before the Juvenile Justice Board even after the lapse of two years and no crime has been registered against the juvenile.

7. In light of the principles laid down by this Court in Sharafudheen’s case (supra), which I fully concur, I am of the definite view that, Annexure A1 - FIR, Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in S.T.No.2010/2024 are unsustainable in law. As long as no crime has been registered against the juvenile, the prosecution will not be against the petitioner.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the Crl.M.C, by quashing Annexure A1 – FIR, Annexure A2 - Final Report and all further proceedings in S.T.No.2010/2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamkulam, as against the petitioner.

Sd/-