Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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
    13 March 2026 2:33 PM
Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 2:33 PM
ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 2:33 PM
State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 2:33 PM
Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 2:33 PM
'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court
  • by sayum
    13 March 2026 2:33 PM
Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna