Law Web: 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

The consequences of reckless driving are manifold. Instances of

minors taking the wheel without possessing a license to drive have been

on the increase, leading to numerous accidents. Repercussions of such

acts include injuries and fatalities not only to the drivers but also to the

innocents on the road. With a near immunity against prosecution of a

minor, the tendency to indulge in such acts unabashedly has seen a rise,

with the owners of motor vehicles not taking due precautions to prevent

such acts. The legislature finally stepped in with a provision for parental or

owner accountability. Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

brevity, ‘the MV Act’) was incorporated in 2019, creating a fiction of guilt on

the guardian of the juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle. Creating

criminal liability on the guardian or the owner of a motor vehicle is seminal and has contemporary social relevance.

2. All these petitions are preferred under section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, ( for short ‘the Cr.P.C’), challenging either the

first information report or the final report filed against the guardian of the

juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle for having permitted the juvenile

to drive a motor vehicle in contravention of the Act. Since the main issues

involved are common, these cases are disposed of by this order.

3. To comprehend the issues involved, the facts in Crl.M.C No. 34 of

2024, which is treated as the leading case, are narrated below. According

to the prosecution, on 18-03-2023, at 01.00 PM, the accused had rashly

and negligently, in a manner that can endanger other persons, permitted a

minor who did not have a licence, to drive the motorbike bearing

registration number KL-11-AT-26, owned by him, through the Athanikkal

Public Road and thereby committed the offences under section 199A of

the MV Act apart from section 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The

accused is the owner of the motorbike and he challenges the final report

filed in C.C. No.403 of 2023 on the files of the Judicial First Class

Magistrate’s Court, Parappanangadi. It must be mentioned at this juncture

itself that petitioner has not produced the FIR, the seizure mahazar or

even the statement of witnesses in this petition challenging the final report.

4. Arguments were addressed mainly by Adv. Thareeq Anver,

Adv. K.M.Firoze on behalf of Adv. P.C.Muhammed Noushiq,

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:73:-

Adv. K.K.Dheerendra Krishnan, Adv. K. Rakesh and Adv. Nima Meriam

Koshy, on behalf of the petitioners, while all other counsel for the various

petitioners, adopted the submissions of the aforenoted Counsel. On behalf

of the State, Sri. K.A. Noushad, learned Public Prosecutor addressed the

arguments while Smt. Sreeja V., Sri.T.R.Renjith and Sri. M.C. Ashi,

learned Public Prosecutors supported the submissions.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the offence

under section 199A of the MV Act cannot be attracted without a charge

having been registered against the juvenile as held in the decision in

Polachan v. State of Kerala [Crl.M.C No. 7479/2022] and Sameera v.

State of Kerala [2023 KHC Online 9217]. It was also submitted that, in

most of the cases, the police had not registered either any First

Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) against the juvenile or submitted a

Social Background Report (for short ‘SBR’) before the Juvenile Justice

Board (for short ‘JJB’) alleging that the juvenile had committed an offence

under the MV Act. The learned counsel also submitted that the offence

under section 199A of the MV Act will be attracted only when the JJB

comes to the conclusion that an offence under the MV Act had been

committed by the juvenile. According to them, since, under section 8 of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short ‘the

JJ Act’) the JJB alone can decide whether a juvenile has committed an

offence or not and without such a finding, even the FIR against the

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:74:-

guardian or the owner of the motor vehicle could not have been registered.

The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that section 199A

of the MV Act creates an instance of vicarious liability through a deeming

fiction and without any conclusive finding regarding the commission of an

offence by the minor, a proceeding against the guardian or the owner of

the vehicle cannot be continued.

6. Referring to the various provisions of the JJ Act, it was submitted

that a juvenile could not be proceeded against in a regular court and when

a finding is to be entered into regarding the commission of an offence by

the juvenile, the court cannot enter a finding without the participation of the

minor in the trial and hence the proceedings are inherently without

jurisdiction. The learned counsel further submitted that if the JJB enters a

finding that the juvenile had not committed an offence and a contradictory

view is entered into by the regular court in a proceeding against the

guardian or the owner of the vehicle without even the participation of the

minor in the trial, the same would lead to disastrous results and would be

against the principle of natural justice as embodied in section 3(xvi) of the

JJ Act. The learned Counsel also submitted that in most of the cases,

neither has the SBR been filed nor has even the birth certificate of the

minor produced along with the final report, rendering the same to be

devoid of any material to justify the proceeding against the guardian or the

owner of the vehicle. It was finally submitted that the investigation is liable

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:75:-

to be completed within two months as per Rule 10(6) of the Model Rules

failing which the case against the minor has to be dropped.

7. On behalf of the State, it was submitted that the MV Act and the

JJ Act operate in different scenarios, and the failure to initiate proceedings

under the JJ Act by itself cannot render the prosecution of the guardian or

the owner of the vehicle for the offence under section 199A of the MV Act

as redundant. It was further submitted that even otherwise, the JJ Act

classifies the offences into three categories and since the offence of

driving a motor vehicle without a license falls within the category of ‘petty

offences’, the juvenile cannot be apprehended. Instead, all that is required

is to detain the child and inform the parent to accompany him, which was,

in fact, done in the cases under consideration. According to the learned

Prosecutor, the failure or delay to file an SBR cannot result in the quashing

of the proceedings against the guardian or the owner of the motor vehicle.

It was also submitted that a reading of the provisions will clearly indicate

that the offence under section 199A of the MV Act can be maintained de

hors the proceedings under the JJ Act.

8. On the basis of the above submissions, the following issues arise

for consideration. (i) What is the scope of section 199A of the MV Act?

(ii) Is it necessary to convict the juvenile or to have laid a charge against

the said juvenile, before initiating proceedings against the guardian or

owner of the motor vehicle under section 199A of the MV Act? (iii) Is there

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:76:-

a time limit for completing an investigation into the offences committed by

the juveniles? (iv). What is the effect of the decisions in Polachan v. State

of Kerala [Crl.M.C No. 7479/2022] and Sameera v. State of Kerala [2023

KHC Online 9217]? (v) Whether the reliefs as claimed for can be granted?

The above issues are considered below.

Issue No. (i). What is the scope of section 199A of the MV Act?

9. Section 199A of the MV Act was introduced by Amendment Act 32

of 2019. Since the objects of the Amendment Act is not seen mentioned, a

perusal of the entire provision, as brought in by the amendment, is

necessary. Hence, it is extracted as below:

“S.199A. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a

juvenile, the guardian of such juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle

shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to

be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall render such guardian or

owner liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the

offence was committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all

due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the Court shall presume

that the use of the motor vehicle by the juvenile was with the consent of

the guardian of such juvenile or the owner of the motor vehicle, as the

case may be.

(2) In addition to the penalty under sub-section (1), such guardian or

owner shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may

extend to three years and with a fine of twenty-five thousand rupees.

(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall not apply

to such guardian or owner if the juvenile committing the offence had

been granted a learner's licence under section 8 or a driving licence and

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:77:-

was operating a motor vehicle which such juvenile was licensed to

operate.

(4) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a juvenile,

the registration of the motor vehicle used in the commission of the

offence shall be cancelled for a period of twelve months.

(5) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a juvenile,

then, notwithstanding section 4 or section 7, such juvenile shall not be

eligible to be granted a driving licence under section 9 or a learner's

licence under section 8 until such juvenile has attained the age of

twenty-five years.

(6) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a juvenile,

then such juvenile shall be punishable with such fines as provided in the

Act while any custodial sentence may be modified as per the provisions

of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.”

10. Section 199A of the MV Act creates accountability for the parent

or owner of a delinquent minor vis-a-vis an offence under the Motor

Vehicles Act. Driving a motor vehicle without a license is prohibited under

section 3 of the MV Act while under section 4 of the MV Act, a person

under the age of eighteen cannot drive a motor vehicle in any public place

except a motorcycle with a capacity less than 50cc. Chapter XIII of the MV

Act providing for the offences and penalties, includes Section 181,

stipulating a punishment of three months imprisonment and or fine of

Rs.5,000/- for driving a motor vehicle in violation of section 3 or 4 of the

MV Act. Thus, if a minor drives a motor vehicle, he can be proceeded

against for violating section 3 or 4 of the MV Act and punishable under

section 181, proceedings of which can be pursued only before the JJB.

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:78:-

11. However, by the principle of parental or ownership

accountability, the contribution of such parent or owner of the motor

vehicle to the commission of the offence by the minor is, by a statutory

fiction, treated as a criminal offence. The provision is intended to impose

affirmative duties on persons responsible for the juvenile or owner of the

vehicle to prevent the commission of offences by minors. The offence

created is sui generis. The provision has been incorporated to combat

crimes committed due to the contribution of the juvenile's guardian or the

owner of a motor vehicle. The offence is an independent and special

category of crime, penalising the person who permits or provides an

opportunity for the minor to commit a crime. The incriminatory conduct,

though has its genesis in the principle of vicarious liability, an independent

criminal culpability is created which does not require the juvenile to be

prosecuted along with the parent or owner of the motor vehicle. The

criminal act or the actus reus of the parent or owner is the conduct of

permitting or allowing the juvenile to have access to the motor vehicle,

while the criminal intent or mens rea is the knowledge that such a juvenile

cannot drive a vehicle. Thus the offence has an independent existence

despite one of the ingredients of the offence being the commission of

offence by the minor.

12. 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

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:79:-

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.

Issue No. (ii) Is it necessary to convict the juvenile or to have laid a

charge against the said juvenile, before initiating proceedings against the

guardian or owner of the motor vehicle under section 199A of the MV Act?

13. The JJ Act treats offences committed by juveniles into three

categories. They are ‘heinous offences’ [section 2(33)] ‘serious offences’

[section 2(54)], and ‘petty offences’ [section 2(45)]. Heinous offences are

those for which the punishment is imprisonment for seven years, while

serious offences are those for which the punishment provided is

imprisonment for three to seven years and petty offences are those for

which the punishment is upto three years. Driving a motor vehicle without

a license is an offence under section 181 of the MV Act and is punishable

with imprisonment upto three months and or fine of five thousand rupees.

Thus the offences committed by a juvenile in driving a motor vehicle fall

under the category of petty offences.

14. As per Rule 8 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Model Rules, 2016 (for short ‘the JJ Model Rules’) enacted in

exercise of the powers under section 110 of the JJ Act, no FIR should be

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:80:-

registered against a child, except when a heinous offence is alleged to

have been committed by the child or when it is committed jointly with an

adult. In all other cases, the information need only be recorded in the

General Diary followed by a SBR of the child in Form No.1 and the

circumstances under which the child was apprehended, wherever

applicable. The proviso to Rule 8 of the JJ Model Rules states that the

power to apprehend a child can be exercised only when the child is

alleged to have committed a heinous offence. In serious and petty

offences, information need only be forwarded to the JJB and the hearing

date be intimated to the parent or guardian. For the purpose of easier

comprehension, Rules 8(1) and 8(7) of the JJ Model Rules are extracted

below:

“Rule 8. Pre-Production action of Police and other Agencies.-(1) No

First Information Report shall be registered except where a heinous

offence is alleged to have been committed by the child, or when such

offence is alleged to have been committed jointly with adults. In all other

matters, the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the Child Welfare Police

Officer shall record the information regarding the offence alleged to have

been committed by the child in the general daily diary followed by a

social background report of the child in Form 1 and circumstances under

which the child was apprehended, wherever applicable, and forward it to

the Board before the first hearing:

Provided that the power to apprehend shall only be exercised with

regard to heinous offences, unless it is in the best interest of the child. For

all other cases involving petty and serious offences and cases where

apprehending the child is not necessary in the interest of the child, the

police or Special Juvenile Police Unit or Child Welfare Police Officer shall

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:81:-

forward the information regarding the nature of offence alleged to be

committed by the child along with his social background report in Form 1

to the Board and intimate the parents or guardian of the child as to when

the child is to be produced for hearing before the Board.

(7) When the child is released in a case where apprehending of the child

is not warranted, the parents or guardians or a fit person in whose custody

the child alleged to be in conflict with law is placed in the best interest of

the child, shall furnish an undertaking on a non-judicial paper in Form 2 to

ensure their presence on the dates during inquiry or proceedings before

the Board.”

15. Rule 10(6) of the JJ Model Rules provides that as far as serious

and petty offences are concerned, the final report shall be filed within two

months. Rule 10(6) of the JJ Model Rules is extracted below:

“Rule 10(6). In cases of petty or serious offences, the final report shall be

filed before the Board at the earliest and in any case not beyond the period

of two months from the date of information to the police, except in those

cases where it was not reasonably known that the person involved in the

offence was a child, in which case extension of time may be granted by the

Board for filing the final report.”

16. Nevertheless, under section 14 of the JJ Act, when a child

alleged to be in conflict with the law is produced before the JJB, an inquiry

has to be conducted, and orders under section 17 or section 18 of the JJ

Act ought to be issued within a period of four months or by a further

extended period of two months. 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. Section 14(5)(d) of JJ Act states that the petty offences shall

be disposed of by the JJB through summary proceedings as per the

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:82:-

procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. Thus two different time lines are

provided by the JJ Act and the Model Rules in respect of petty offences -

(i) a period of two months for filing final report and (ii) a period of four

months extendable to six months for completing the inquiry by JJB.

17. In the decision in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu and

Another (2022 SCC Online SC 870), it was observed that the timelines

prescribed under the JJ Act have a rationale which is intended to ensure

that a child is not subjected to unnecessarily long and lengthy processes of

trials and the matter is taken to its logical conclusion at the earliest. In a

recent decision of the Supreme Court in Child in Conflict with Law

through his Mother v. The State of Karnataka and Another (2024

LiveLaw (SC) 353), it was held that there is no deadline for the inquiry

under section 14(1) for heinous offences.

18. The aforesaid principle, however, cannot be applied to petty

offences, as under section 14(4) of the JJ Act, if the inquiry regarding a

petty offence committed by a juvenile is not completed within the time limit

prescribed therein, the proceedings will stand terminated. On a perusal of

the provisions of section 14 of the JJ Act, it is evident that, as far as petty

offences are concerned, a time limit has been provided and its

consequences also delineated, thereby rendering the time limit in section

14(4) of JJ Act as mandatory. The time limit in section 14(4) of the JJ Act

will apply only after the inquiry against the child commences. In petty

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:83:-

offences, the inquiry commences only after the final report is filed, as the

juvenile need not be produced or appear before the JJB till then.

19. On a harmonious reading of the provisions of section 14(4) of

JJ Act and Rules 8 and 10 of the JJ Model Rules extracted in the

preceding paragraphs, it is evident that no FIR can be registered against a

child for the commission of a petty offence. Proceedings for a petty offence

against a juvenile are initiated by recording the information relating to the

offence in the General Diary. This has to be followed by a Social

Background Report of the child to be forwarded to the JJB, and intimation

of the hearing date. Since the SBR contemplates various information and

materials to be collected, it will require time and utilization of resources of

the police. Obviously it will not be possible to be collected when the

information about the crime is entered in the General Diary. The date of

hearing by the JJB also cannot be provided on the date the intimation is

forwarded to the JJB. Thus, SBR need only be submitted along with the

final report and only thereafter can the date of hearing be intimated by the

JJB. Once information regarding the commission of a petty offence by a

juvenile is entered in the General Diary, a juvenile can be said to have

committed an offence for the purpose of section 199A of the MV Act.

20. Nonetheless, after the filing of the final report, the inquiry by the

Board under section 17 or 18 of the JJ Act will have to be completed within

four months or a further extended period of two months, failing which, the

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:84:-

proceedings against the juvenile will stand terminated as per section 14(4)

of the JJ Act. 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.

Issue No. (iii). Is there a time limit for completing an investigation into the

offences committed by the juveniles?

21. In Rule 10(6) of the Model Rules it is specified that in cases of

petty or serious offences, the final report shall be filed before the Board at

the earliest and in any case not beyond the period of two months from the

date of information to the police. Interpreting the said provision, the High

Court of Himachal Pradesh had in State of H.P v. Ankit Kumar

MANU/H.P/2588/2019 and in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Monu

MANU/HP/2609/2019 held that the words ‘not beyond two months”

indicate that the provision is mandatory and has to be scrupulously

adhered to. However, with respect, I am unable to subscribe to the said

view.

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:85:-

22. Though Rule 10(6) of the Model Rules stipulates that the final

report shall be filed at the earliest and not beyond two months, there is

nothing provided either in the JJ Act or in the Model Rules about the

consequence of failure to file the final report within the time limit. An

investigation into a criminal offence cannot be scuttled on the basis of a

delayed investigation unless the delay is so substantial that it interferes

with the right of the accused to a fair trial or when the statute prescribes

explicitly such a consequence. Though there is an implicit right for speedy

investigation flowing out of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is not

feasible to prescribe a mandatory outer time limit for investigation, unless

the statute expressly provides for it. The time limit for an investigation

depends on various external factors and cannot be put into a straitjacket.

Neither the Act nor the Rules provide any consequences for failure to file

the final report within two months unlike section 14(3) of the JJ Act.

Further, the provision falls within the procedural law and even if the Rule is

couched in a negative language, it cannot be interpreted to be mandatory.

The decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose

Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757 relied on by the counsel for the

petitioners, dealt with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and

the said principle cannot be adopted to interpret a penal statute. Thus

though the final report has to be filed within two months, in the absence of

any stipulation either in the Rules or in the Act regarding the

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:86:-

consequences of non-filing of such a final report within the time limit, the

word ‘shall’ in Rule 10(6) of the JJ Model Rules will have to be read as

directory.

Issue No. (iv). What is the effect of the decisions in Polachan v. State of

Kerala [Crl.M.C No. 7479/2022] and Sameera v. State of Kerala [2023

KHC Online 9217]?

23. In the decision in Polachan V. State of Kerala [Crl.M.C No.

7479/2022], a learned Single Judge of this Court had observed 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. The said

decision has been followed in Sameera v. State of Kerala [2023 KHC

Online 9217] as well as in Khairunnisa v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC

Online Ker. 4265]. Although 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, the JJ Act does not contemplate any charge

to be framed against a juvenile for petty offences. This aspect was not

brought to the notice of the Court in the above decisions. The observation

in the above-referred decisions that no offence under section 199A of MV

Act would be attracted without a charge against the juvenile was rendered

without considering the JJ Act. As per the said statute, an entry in the

General Diary indicates the commencement of proceedings against the

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:87:-

juvenile and that alone is sufficient to initiate prosecution proceedings

against the guardian of the juvenile or owner of the motor vehicle, as the

case may be. With utmost respect, it has to be observed that decisions in

Polachan (supra), Sameera (supra) and Khairunnisa (supra) have been

rendered without taking note of the provisions of the JJ Act and are hence

per incuriam.

Issue No.(v). Whether the reliefs claimed can be granted?

24. All these cases have been filed based on the decisions in

Polachan (supra) and Sameera (supra). Since the absence of a charge

does not vitiate the proceedings against the guardian of a juvenile or the

owner of the motor vehicle, as the case may be, all these petitions under

section 482 Cr.P.C are without any merit. Further, documents are required

to be sifted to identify whether the offences alleged are made out or not.

The entire set of documents has also not been produced in any of the

cases. Except in Crl.M.C No.1092/2024, neither the statement of

witnesses nor the seizure mahazar have been produced. In the aforesaid

case, the statements of only two of the witnesses and the seizure mahazar

have been produced which is also insufficient. Even otherwise, while

exercising the power under section 482, it is not possible for this Court to

sift through the materials or to weigh the materials and then come to a

conclusion one way or the other. Further, it is not justifiable for this Court to

embark upon an inquiry as to the reliability or otherwise of the allegations

2024:KER:44617

Crl.M.C. No.34 /24 & Conn. Cases -:88:-

made in the final report and a finding on the veracity of the material relied

on by the prosecution is not a consideration for this Court while exercising

the power under S.482 Cr.P.C. Reference to the decisions in Mahendra

K.C. v. State of Karnataka and Another (2022) 2 SCC 129 and State of

Kerala and Others v. O.C. Kuttan and Others (1999) 2 SCC 651) are

relevant in this context.

25. However, the question whether the proceedings against the

minor in each individual case have been terminated or not, or have been

concluded is left open to be raised before the appropriate court in

accordance with the procedure prescribed for trial of warrant cases. Since

the offence under section 199A is to be tried as a warrant case, the

accused do have the liberty to approach the court with an appropriate

application for discharge, if the circumstances entitle them to do so.

26. Though in some of the cases, section 336 IPC is also alleged to

have been committed, none of the counsel had raised any arguments,

despite pleadings. The question of whether the conduct alleged would

attract the offence under section 336 IPC, is a matter which depends on

the nature of evidence to be adduced and hence falls within the realm of

disputed facts. Such disputed facts cannot be considered under section

482 Cr.P.C. Therefore, interference against the inclusion of the offence

under section 336 IPC is also not warranted at this stage. Of course, the

petitioners are at liberty to take up such a contention also, if any

application for discharge is filed as observed in the preceding paragraph.

Conclusion.

27. 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.