Back
Nadeem Ur Rehman's Minor Son Drove Car, Killed Three; Criticizes Father
The on Wednesday reserved judgment on a criminal petition filed by a father seeking to quash the charge of () against him, following a tragic 2020 accident where his 14-year-old son allegedly drove his car and mowed down three members of a family on the Mysuru-Bengaluru Highway. The single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made sharp oral observations, calling the incident "unpardonable" and questioning the father's accountability for allowing the minor access to the vehicle.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Nadeem Ur Rehman, was employed as an Assistant Sales Manager at at the time of the incident. He is Accused No. 2 in the crime registered by the , Mysuru. The prosecution alleges that on the day of the accident, Rehman's minor son took the car keys without his knowledge and drove the vehicle into a bike near Dandi Maramma Temple, resulting in the deaths of three family members. The trial is currently pending before the .
Rehman filed the petition under , seeking quashing of the Section 304 Part II charge. He did not challenge the charges under the (Sections 5(1), 180, and 199A), for which the maximum punishment is three years.
Court's Strong Observations
During the hearing, Justice Nagaprasanna expressed deep concern over the rising menace of minors driving vehicles, particularly for the purpose of creating social media reels. The court remarked:
"…This has become rampant today. For the purpose of reels, children below 18 are driving cars in the manner they want… This results in somebody's life being treated so casually that their lives are gone."
The judge further emphasized the father's responsibility, stating:
"…The case is that the father was not aware that the minor child has taken the car and gone and killed someone. This is unpardonable. You are a father; you are responsible. You cannot allow your 14-year-old child to drive the car, kill someone, and come to court."
These oral observations underscore the court's view that parental negligence in safeguarding car keys can amount to criminal culpability, especially when a minor's actions result in loss of life.
Petitioner's Arguments
Counsel for Rehman argued that the charge of cannot be sustained against the father merely for a lapse or inaction. He relied on the 's decision in , which held that a mere lapse or inaction does not attract Section 304 Part II unless there is a from the accused. The submission was:
"Fact of the matter is that it was done without my knowledge. The Apex Court in the Shanthibai case has held that mere lapse or inaction would not amount to 304 unless there is a
from the side of the accused. It is not the case here."
The counsel further invoked the principle of (), arguing that a of handing over the vehicle is required, which was absent since Rehman was at his workplace when the minor took the keys. The chargesheet, he pointed out, does not mention that Rehman was present at home when the car was taken out.
Prosecution's Counterarguments
The Special Public Prosecutor opposing the petition argued that the father's accountability is established simply by the child's access to the car keys. The SPP submitted that prosecution witnesses have stated that Rehman allowed the minor to use the vehicle, implying a permissive attitude that amounts to a conscious disregard for the safety of others.
The prosecution's stance aligns with the view that a parent who fails to secure vehicle keys or who tolerates underage driving can be held for the consequences, especially when the minor's driving leads to fatalities.
Legal Analysis
Section 304 Part II of the IPC deals with not amounting to murder, punishable with imprisonment up to ten years. The provision requires the prosecution to establish that the accused's act was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death. In cases involving parents and minor drivers, the legal question is whether passive inaction—such as failing to prevent the minor from accessing the vehicle—can constitute "knowledge" under this section.
The Shanthibai principle, cited by the petitioner, suggests that mere omission or negligence does not suffice; there must be a that creates the risk. However, the High Court's oral remarks indicate a possible departure from this rigid approach in cases where the parent's failure to supervise is egregious or when the minor's conduct is part of a known pattern. The court's emphasis on the "rampant" practice of minors driving for reels suggests that societal context may influence judicial interpretation of parental responsibility.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
This case could have significant implications for how courts view parental liability in motor vehicle accidents involving minors. If the High Court upholds the Section 304 Part II charge, it may set a precedent that parents who negligently permit underage driving can be prosecuted for , not merely for violations under the . Such a ruling would underscore the gravity of the social media-driven trend of minors driving recklessly for content.
Legal practitioners should note the court's focus on the "" principle and its interplay with the Shanthibai standard. The decision in this case may clarify the threshold for imposing criminal liability on parents when the child's actions are unknown but foreseeable. Additionally, the case highlights the need for parents to exercise strict control over vehicle keys and to discourage any unsupervised driving by minors, particularly in the age of viral reels.
Conclusion
The has reserved its judgment, leaving the legal fraternity to await a decision that could reshape the boundaries of parental accountability in fatal accidents involving minor drivers. The court's strong observations serve as a warning to parents across the state: turning a blind eye to a child's unauthorized use of a vehicle may invite not just civil but criminal consequences. As the menace of underage driving for social media continues to grow, this case stands as a critical juncture in the intersection of criminal law, motor vehicle legislation, and social responsibility.
