A Will That Silences Legal Heirs Without Cause Cannot Speak the Truth of the Testator’s Intent: Orissa High Court Rejects Solemnity of Registered Will Conviction Can Be Set Aside Even in Non-Compoundable Offences If Parties Settle: Punjab & Haryana High Court Affirms Inherent Power under Section 482 CrPC Mere Absence of Ticket or Station Report Not Fatal to Claim: Bombay High Court Says Railway Claims Can Be Proved by Circumstantial Evidence Judgment of Acquittal Cannot Be Reversed Merely Because A Different View Is Possible, Unless It’s Perverse Or Ignores Material Evidence: Himachal High Court Courts Cannot Reopen Admissions Once Deadline Expires: Orissa High Court Rejects SEBC Nursing Aspirants' Plea Filed Post Cut-Off A Sketchy Allegation of Corrupt Practice Can’t Be Cured Later Through Amendment: Bombay High Court Rejects Election Petition Against Shiv Sena MLA Delay in FIR, If Plausibly Explained, Cannot Vitiate Claim: Madras High Court Enhances Compensation to ₹3.26 Crores for Fatal Accident Involving Pillion Rider Failure to Videograph Search Violates BNSS: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail, Slams Police for Ignoring Procedural Mandates No Customs Duty Without Clear Authority Of Law: Supreme Court Quashes Levy On SEZ Electricity Supplied To Domestic Tariff Area Owner's Admission Cannot Be Brushed Aside to Deny Compensation: Supreme Court Reinstates ₹3.7 Lakh Award to Family of Deceased Driver Benefit Of Doubt Must Prevail Where Eyewitness Testimony Is Infirm And Contradict Medical Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Double-Murder Convict A Mere Error in Bail Orders Cannot Tarnish a Judge’s Career: Supreme Court Quashes Dismissal of Judicial Officer for Granting Bail under Excise Act Order 1 Rule 10 CPC | A Necessary Party is One Without Whom No Order Can Be Made Effectively: Supreme Court Readiness and Willingness Must Be Proven—Mere Pleading Is Not Enough For Specific Performance: Supreme Court Returning Expired Stamp Papers Is No Refund in Law: Supreme Court Directs State to Pay ₹3.99 Lakhs Despite Limitation under UP Stamp Rules Supreme Court Distinguishes ‘Masterminds’ from ‘Facilitators’: Bail Denied to Umar Khalid & Sharjeel Imam, Granted to Gulfisha Fatima & Others: Supreme Court Jurisdiction of Small Causes Court Under Section 41 Does Not Extinguish Arbitration Clause in Leave and License Agreements: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Unilateral Appointment Void Ab Initio; Participation in Proceedings Does Not Constitute Waiver: Supreme Court Section 21 Arbitration Act Is Not a Gatekeeper of Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ₹2 Crore Arbitral Award Against Kerala Government

Guardian of a Juvenile Can Be Proceeded Against Only If a Juvenile Has Committed the Offence Under the Motor Vehicles Act – Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, under the bench of the Honorable Mr. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, has set a new precedent in cases involving guardians’ liability for traffic offenses committed by minors. The court’s decision in the case of Sidheek vs. State of Kerala (CRL.MC NO. 9967 OF 2023) underscores a crucial legal point regarding the implications of the Motor Vehicles Act on guardians of juvenile offenders.

In the judgment, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted, “As per section 199A, the guardian of a juvenile can be implicated in for the said offence only if a juvenile has committed the offence under the Motor Vehicles Act.” This observation highlights the necessity of direct involvement of a juvenile in the offense for the guardian’s liability to be established.

The case revolved around the petitioner, Sidheek, who was accused of permitting a minor to ride a motorbike, thus endangering public safety. The charges included sections 279, 336 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 5, 180, 199A(1), 199A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The High Court’s decision emphasized the lack of charges against the juvenile and the absence of sufficient evidence against the petitioner. The court referenced previous judgments (Crl.M.C.No.4779/2023 and Crl.M.C.No.7479/2022) to reinforce its stance that without a charge against the juvenile under the Motor Vehicles Act, the proceedings against the guardian are not tenable.

This judgment sets a significant precedent in cases where guardians are implicated in traffic offenses committed by minors. It clarifies the legal requirements for establishing guardian liability and stresses the importance of direct evidence against the juvenile for such charges to hold.

The legal community views this judgment as a pivotal decision in understanding the nuances of the Motor Vehicles Act concerning juvenile offenses and their guardians’ liability. Legal experts suggest that this ruling could impact future cases where guardians are held accountable for minors’ actions in traffic-related incidents.

The High Court of Kerala’s ruling in Sidheek vs. State of Kerala provides critical insights into the legal principles governing guardians’ liability in juvenile traffic offenses. It underscores the need for concrete evidence and direct involvement of the juvenile in the offense for the guardian to be held accountable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

 Date of Decision: 8th December 2023

SIDHEEK  VS STATE OF KERALA

 

Latest Legal News