"Consequences Of Reckless Driving Are Manifold": Kerala HC Issues Comprehensive Guidelines To Govern Proceedings U/S 199A Of MV Act

The Kerala High Court has reinforced the liability of guardians or vehicle owners under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act), even in the absence of charges against minors for driving without a license.

The Court was hearing a batch of petitions 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.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas highlighted the escalating incidents of accidents involving underage drivers, often resulting in severe injuries and fatalities.

The Court stated that 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 Court said. 

The Court also stated that 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:-

1. Independence of Offence: Section 199A operates independently and uniquely under the MV Act.

2. Initiation of Proceedings: Proceedings against guardians or owners can commence upon recording information of the minor's offence in the General Diary, followed by the submission of a Social Background Report (SBR) without undue delay.

3. Timeliness of Reports: The final report of the minor's offences must be submitted before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) promptly, preferably within two months of recording in the General Diary, though the timeline is directory, not mandatory.

4. Trial Procedure: The inquiry against the minor should adhere to the procedure for petty offences as per the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

5. Completion of Inquiry: The JJB must complete the inquiry within four months from the date set for hearing, with a possible extension of two months.

6. Outcome Determination: If the JJB concludes that the minor did not commit the offence or terminates proceedings, the Section 199A proceedings against guardians or owners cannot proceed, resulting in acquittal or discharge.

The case originated from Writ Petitions seeking to quash charges against guardians under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 199A of the MV Act for permitting minors to drive without licenses.

The Petitioners argued that Section 199A required prior charges against minors, citing previous court decisions that invalidated proceedings without such charges.

However, the Court aligned with the Public Prosecutor's stance that Section 199A stands independently of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act's proceedings. It emphasized the accountability of guardians in preventing minors from driving without proper authorization, asserting that such negligence endangers public safety and warrants stringent legal consequences.

The Court said, "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 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. 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," it added. 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions. 

Cause Title: Sharafudheen v. State of Kerala & Ors and Connected Cases [Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:44617]

Click here to read/download the Order