Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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