Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: guardian act in Sharafudheen vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2024Matching Fragments
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.
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 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?
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 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.
(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.
Thus, all these criminal miscellaneous cases are dismissed, reserving the petitioners' liberty to initiate appropriate action as required based on the principles laid down herein.