Kerala HC Summarises law on liability of parents and Guardian of minor in case of rash driving by minor

 Since the issues raised in these petitions are seminal in nature, the following propositions are culled out from the above discussion for appropriate guidance and action by all authorities.

(i). The offence under section 199A of the MV Act is sui generis and

is an independent offence.

(ii). The commission of an offence under the MV Act by the juvenile

is an essential ingredient of section 199A of the MV Act, however, a finding regarding the commission of an offence under the MV Act by the juvenile as per section 17 or 18 of the JJ Act, is not a sine qua non for initiating proceedings against the guardian or owner of the motor vehicle under the said section.

(iii). Proceedings against the guardian of a juvenile or owner of a

motor vehicle under section 199A of the MV Act can be initiated if

information regarding the commission of an offence by the juvenile has been recorded in the General Diary. The recording of information in the General Diary has to be followed by the submission of a Social

Background Report of the child in Form No.1 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, without undue delay and at any rate, atleast along with the final report.

(iv). The final report in relation to the offence allegedly committed by the juvenile ought to be submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board at the earliest, preferably within two months of recording the information in the General Diary. The period of two months mentioned in Rule 10(6) of the Model Rules is only a directory provision and is not mandatory.

(v). As the JJ Act does not contemplate any charge to be framed

against a juvenile for a petty offence, the decisions in Polachan V. State of Kerala [Crl.M.C No. 7479/2022] Sameera v. State of Kerala [2023 KHC Online 9217] as well as in Khairunnisa v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC Online Ker. 4265] are per incuriam.

(vi). The inquiry against the juvenile before the Juvenile Justice

Board shall be conducted according to the procedure prescribed for the trial of petty offences under the Cr.P.C.

(vii). The inquiry against the juvenile for driving a motor vehicle

without a license if any alleged, must be completed by the Juvenile Justice Board within four months of the date fixed for hearing after filing the final report or if any extension is granted for two months further, within the said extended period. As section 14(4) of the JJ Act is a mandatory provision, if the inquiry proceeding against the juvenile is not completed before the JJB within the period mentioned therein, the proceeding against the minor will become statutorily terminated under section 14(4) of the JJ Act.

(viii). If the inquiry proceeding against the minor is terminated under section 14(4) of the JJ Act, or if the JJB comes to the conclusion under section 17 of the JJ Act that the juvenile has not committed the offence, the proceedings against the guardian or owner under section 199A of the MV Act cannot continue thereafter and the accused will have to be acquitted or discharged, as the case may be. {Para 27}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

 CRL.MC NO. 34 OF 2024

SHARAFUDHEEN  Vs    STATE OF KERALA

MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Dated: 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 

Citation: 2024:KER:44617

Print Page

Madras HC: Under which circumstances the court can direct forwarding of complaint to police under S 151 of CPC?

 In the case on hand, since, as I have already pointed out, the offence of forgery of Exs. A2 and A3 was committed outside the Court, even before they were produced before the Court, there can be no impediment for the police to register a case. When it was pointed out by this Court to the learned counsel on either side that this Court has power to issue a direction to the Tahsildar, Tambaram to forward a complaint to the police in respect of the above offence of forgery, for registration of a criminal case so as to investigate the same thoroughly to find out the real culprits, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that such power is not available for this Court in a civil proceedings. Of course, it is true that there is no express provision in the Civil Procedure Code specifically empowering a Civil Court to issue a direction either to a party or to a witness to make a complaint to the police. But at the same time, it needs to be noted that there is no prohibition, either express or implied, thereby prohibiting a Civil Court from issuing any direction to a party or a witness to forward a complaint to the police when a serious offence of forgery is alleged. {Para 59}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS

Second Appeal No. 479 of 2012 and M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012

Decided On: 30.03.2015

N. Natarajan Vs. The Executive Officer

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S. Nagamuthu, J.

Citation: MANU/TN/0811/2015

Print Page

Supreme Court: Whether the court should consider gravity of offence alongwith triple test before releasing any accused on regular bail?

Thus from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the Rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the Accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial. However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even economic offences would fall under the category of "grave offence" and in such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation made against the Accused. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the offence the Accused is alleged to have committed. Such consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied. In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a Rule that bail should be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provides so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case to case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the Accused to stand trial. {Para 21}

22. In the above circumstance it would be clear that even after concluding the triple test in favour of the Appellant the learned Judge of the High Court was certainly justified in adverting to the issue relating to the gravity of the offence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1831/2019 

Decided On: 04.12.2019

P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.

Author: A.S. Bopanna, J.

Citation: 2019 INSC 1317, MANU/SC/1670/2019

Print Page

Fraud at the Courthouse Door: When Can Civil Courts Use Section 151 CPC to Set the Criminal Law in Motion?

 Why this question matters

Civil judges increasingly encounter forged documents, fabricated seals, and engineered “fraud on the court” designed to siphon public money or manipulate rights. The immediate civil response is clear: refuse or recall relief obtained by fraud. But a connected and difficult question is: can the civil court itself trigger criminal prosecution, and if so, when and how, under Section 151 CPC?

Supreme Court and High Court jurisprudence now fairly clearly recognises that inherent powers under Section 151 can be used to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings—including by undoing orders obtained by fraud and, in appropriate cases, by directing that serious independent forgeries be reported to the police. This operates alongside, and not in derogation of, the special mechanism for “offences against public justice” under Section 195/340 CrPC, now Section 215/379 BNSS.

Print Page