Prosecution of vehicle owner for juvenile offences requires timely filing of reports; failure leads to unsustainable charges.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.2054 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kasaragod ('Trial Court', in short), which has originated from Crime No.192 of 2024 registered by the Vanitha Police Station, Kasaragod, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Section 125 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 199A (2) and 194D of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 ('MV Act', in short).

2. The essence of the prosecution case is that, the petitioner, who is the registered owner of a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-14-U-7291, had permitted a minor to ride the motor cycle without wearing a helmet on 05.11.2024, at around 18.55 hours.

3. The petitioner asserts that she had not given her vehicle to a minor as alleged by the prosecution. In order to attract offences under Sections 199A (2) and 194D of the MV Act, it is necessary that the vehicle was ridden by a juvenile. However, there is no material to substantiate that the petitioner's vehicle was ridden by a juvenile. Furthermore, even though the alleged incident took place on 05.11.2024, the Investigating Officer has not filed the final report, as against the juvenile before the Juvenile Justice Board, as envisaged under Rule 10(6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules , 2016 ('Rules', in short). Due to non-filing of the final report within the mandatory period of two months, the prosecution against the juvenile has got terminated in light of Section 14 (4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2015 ('Act', for brevity). Consequently, the prosecution against the petitioner is unsustainable in law. Hence, Annexure A1 FIR and Annexure A2 final report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.2054 of

2024 may be quashed.

4. I have 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 in Sharafudheen 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 constituted under the Act and Rules, 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, failing which the proceedings against the juvenile will stand terminated.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the fact that the final report has been not filed against the juvenile within the stipulated period of two months, as mandated under the Act and Rules. Instead, the final report is reported to be filed on 17.02.2026, which is well beyond the mandatory time period.

7. In light of the principles laid down in Sharafudheen's case (supra), which I fully concur, and that the final report as against the juvenile has not been filed within the mandatory time period stipulated under Rule 10(6) of the Rules, which has led to the termination of the proceedings against the juvenile in view of Section 14 (4) of the Act, I am satisfied that all further proceedings in C.C.No.2054 of 2024 as against the petitioner is unsustainable in law. Hence, I am convinced that this is a fit case to exercise the inherent powers of this Court