Kerala High Court issues guidelines for prosecuting guardians of minors who drive without licence

The Kerala High Court recently held that the guardian of a minor or the owner of a vehicle driven by a minor can face prosecution under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) even before the minor is proceeded against for driving without a license. [Sharafudheen v State of Kerala & Ors and Connected Cases].Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that there has been a rise in accidents involving minors driving without license, resulting in serious injuries and even death of both drivers and bystanders."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. Since minors are immune from prosecution, the tendency to indulge in such acts has been on the rise and the owners of motor vehicles do not take due precautions to prevent such acts, the Court noted. Hence, creating criminal liability on the guardian or the owner of a motor vehicle is seminal and has contemporary social relevance, the Court said..In light of the same, the Court issued the following guidelines to be followed by authorities while considering such cases:The offence under Section 199A of the MV Act is sui generis (unique) and independent;While the commission of an offence under the MV Act by the juvenile is an essential ingredient of Section 199A of the MV Act, a finding regarding the same as per the provisions of the JJ Act is not requirement for initiating proceedings against the guardian or owner of the motor vehicle under Section 199AProceedings 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. But it has to be followed by the submission of a Social Background Report of the child without undue delay and at any rate, atleast along with the final report.The final report of the offences allegedly committed by the juvenile ought to be submitted before the JJB 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.As the JJ Act does not contemplate any charge to be framed against a juvenile for a petty offence. Therefore, the decisions in Polachan V. State of Kerala, Sameera v. State of Kerala, and Khairunnisa v. State of Kerala, which said that absence of such charges vitiate proceedings against the guardian or owner, are bad in law.The inquiry against the juvenile before the JJB shall be conducted according to the procedure prescribed for the trial of petty offences under the CrPC.The inquiry against the juvenile for driving a motor vehicle without a license if any alleged, must be completed by the JJB 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 per section 14(4) of the JJ Act, if the inquiry against the juvenile is not completed before the JJB within the mandated period, the proceeding against the minor will be statutorily terminated.If the inquiry proceeding against the minor is terminated or if the JJB comes to the conclusion under 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..The case arose from multiple instances where guardians or owners were charged under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 199A of the MV Act for allowing minors to drive without a license. These individuals approached the High Court to quash the proceedings against them.Section 336 of the IPC deals with acts endangering the life or personal safety of others and it prescribes imprisonment for up to three months, a fine, or both. Section 199A of the MV Act holds guardians or vehicle owners liable if a minor commits a motor vehicle offence, and it prescribes imprisonment for up to three years as punishment. .The petitioners argued that a minor must first be charged with an offence for the guardians or owners to be liable under Section 199A. They referred to certain decisions of constitutional courts which stated that without charges against the minor, Section 199A could not be applied to guardians.They also contended that police sometimes fail to file FIRs (First Information Reports) or submit Social Background Reports (SBRs) to the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) when dealing with minors driving without a license.However, the Public Prosecutor contended that Section 199A proceedings against guardians or owners could proceed independently of any proceedings under the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act. .The Court concurred with the public prosecutor and therefore, dismissed the petitions.The single-judge stressed on the importance of holding guardians accountable for letting minors drive without a licence. The Court also laid down clear instructions to deal with such cases in the future. .The petitioners were represented by advocate Thareeq Anver, KM Firoze, and others.Publice Prosecutor KA Noushad appeared for the state..[Read Order]