Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

Police Cannot Seize Driving Licenses Merely Based on FIRs in IPC Offences: Madras High Court Upholds Rights of Drivers

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

In a significant judgment, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has reaffirmed the rights of drivers by ruling that the police do not have the authority to seize driving licenses merely based on the registration of FIRs for offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice B. Pugalendhi, presiding over the bench, delivered a landmark decision in the writ petitions filed by four drivers employed with the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation.

The petitioners, P. Prabu, A. Velsamy, E. Salaimanimadhavan, and R. Rajamanickam, approached the court seeking a writ of mandamus against the Regional Transport Officers and Inspectors of Police of various districts. They challenged the seizure of their driving licenses following accidents that resulted in criminal cases under Section 304 (A) IPC for causing death by negligence.

Justice Pugalendhi observed, “The respondent police cannot seize the driving license... it is not for the Regional Transport Authority to pre-judge the guilt of the petitioners, even before the filing of the final report by the respondent Police in the criminal cases registered against these petitioners.” This observation underscored the principle that an individual’s rights cannot be prematurely infringed based on an accusation.

The court referenced several precedents, including the cases of P. Sethuraman and S. Murugan, to establish the limits of police authority under Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The judgment highlighted that the seizure of the license is not mandatory for action under Section 19 of the Act and that police powers are restricted to specific sections of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The court ordered the respondent Regional Transport Officers to return the driving licenses of the petitioners within one week. It also permitted the respondent Police to forward relevant materials to the RTOs after filing the final reports in the criminal cases for appropriate action under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

DATED: 12.01.2024

P.Prabu VS Regional Transport Officers and Inspectors of Police of various districts       

 

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    06 July 2026 10:56 AM
Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    06 July 2026 10:56 AM
Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    06 July 2026 10:56 AM
Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court
  • by sayum
    06 July 2026 10:29 AM
RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court
  • by sayum
    06 July 2026 8:09 AM
Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court
  • by sayum
    06 July 2026 8:09 AM
Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court