Guardian Of Minor Driving Vehicle Without Licence Can Be Prosecuted U/S 199A MV Act Even Before Determining Minor's Guilt: Kerala HC

The Court was considering several cases where criminal proceedings were initiated against guardians or owners for allowing minors to drive motor vehicles without license. In all the cases, crimes were registered against these persons under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 199A of the MV Act. Thus, the petitioners approached the High Court invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them.

Section 336 of the IPC provides three months imprisonment and a fine or both for rash or negligent acts endangering the life or personal safety of others. Section 199 A of the MV Act pertains to offences by juveniles. According to the provision, if a juvenile commits a motor vehicle offence, the parent or guardian of such juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle shall be made liable and proceeded against as per paw and punished accordingly.

The petitioners argued that juveniles must commit offences for their guardians or vehicle owners to be held liable under Section 199A of the MV Act. They asserted that in all these instances, no charges have been attributed against the juveniles to attract liability under Section 199A against their guardians. Reliance was placed on Polachan v. State of Kerala (2022) and Sameera v. State of Kerala (2023) where it was held that in the absence of any charge against the juvenile for the commission of an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act, no offence under section 199A against the guardian of such juvenile would get attracted.

It was also contended that FIR cannot be registered against guardians or owners until the Juvenile Justice Board finds that the juvenile has committed an offence under the MV Act.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the proceedings under Section 199A of the MV Act can be maintained de hors the proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act. It was submitted that failure to initiate proceedings against the minor under JJ Act would not affect the proceedings initiated against guardians or owners of vehicles.

Proceedings Against Guardians, Owners Under Section 199A of the MV Act

The Court explained that the purpose of amending the Motor Vehicles Act in 2019 by adding Section 199A was to impose accountability and criminal liability on guardians or owner of the motor vehicles. This amendment aimed to deter minors from driving motor vehicles to prevent road accidents, given the serious repercussions of reckless driving. The Court stated that imposing criminal liability upon guardians or owners of vehicles for committing motor vehicle offences by juveniles was seminal and has contemporary social relevance.

Further, the Court stated that the owner or guardian commits both actus reus and mens rea when a juvenile is permitted to drive a motor vehicle. The actus reus involves the conduct of the guardian or owner in permitting or allowing the minor to have access to the motor vehicle. The mens rea is the knowledge or awareness that a juvenile cannot drive a vehicle.

The Court thus stated that guardians or owners of motor vehicles can be prosecuted under Section 199A independently without involving the juveniles.

"The minor is not the accused under section 199A of the MV Act, but it is only the parent or the owner of the vehicle who can be proceeded against under the said provision. Since the guardian of the juvenile or the owner of a motor vehicle alone is the accused under section 199A of the MV Act, proceedings against the minor before the regular court under the said provision are not contemplated and it can continue without the junction of the minor."

Proceedings Against Minors Under the JJ Act

The Court went on to analyze the provisions of the JJ Act and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016. It observed that when a juvenile is alleged to have committed a heinous offence, an FIR can be registered and the child could be apprehended.

It further stated that when a juvenile is alleged to have committed serious and petty offences, information is recorded in the General Diary, followed by a Social Background Report of the child to be forwarded to the JJ Board and then hearing dates would be intimated to parents or guardians of the juveniles and sent to JJ Board for hearing. Significantly, the offence of driving a motor vehicle without a license falls within the category of 'petty offences' and the juvenile cannot be apprehended for it nor can a FIR be registered.

As per section 14(4) of the JJ Act, where the allegation relates to petty offences, if the inquiry by the JJB is not completed even after the extended period, the proceedings shall stand terminated.

In this backdrop Court held,

"Once the proceeding against the juvenile is terminated as inconclusive, the corollary is that the juvenile cannot be said to have committed an offence. Naturally, in such circumstances, the proceedings against the guardian or the owner of the vehicle also will have to be brought to an end by a process of law available. On the contrary, if the proceeding against the juvenile ends in an order under section 18 of the JJ Act finding that the juvenile has committed the offence alleged against him, the said finding can be used against the guardian or the owner in the proceeding under section 199A of the MV Act."

The Court further observed that even though the commission of an offence under the MV Act by the juvenile is an essential ingredient to attract the offence under section 199A of the MV Act, it would not mean that a charge has to be framed against the juvenile alleging the commission of petty offences. It thus stated that information entered in the General Diary is sufficient to initiate proceedings against the guardian or owner of the motor vehicle under Section 199A. It held that the decisions in Polachan (supra) and Sameera (supra) were given without considering the JJ Act and are hence per incuriam.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed all the petitions.

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Thareeq Anver, K.M.Firoze on behalf of P.C.Muhammed Noushiq, K.K.Dheerendra Krishnan, K. Rakesh, Nima Meriam Koshy

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutors K A Noushad, Sreeja V, T.R.Renjith, M.A. Ashi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 382

Case Title: Sharafudheen v State of Kerala & Connected Cases

Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 34 OF 2024 & Connected Cases

Click here to read/download the Order