Registered Owner Remains Liable Until RC Transfer — Mere Oral Sale Does Not Extinguish Criminal Liability: Karnataka High Court

“Ownership Cannot Be Transferred By Mere Words — Till RC Is Changed, You Remain The Owner In The Eyes Of Law,” Karnataka High Court, in a significant ruling concerning criminal liability of vehicle owners, dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking quashing of criminal proceedings registered under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for a fatal road accident.

The matter was heard by Justice J.M. Khazi, where the petitioner, Mr. Prabhakaran K. (Accused No.2), sought to quash the FIR registered by Cubbon Park Traffic Police Station, contending that he had sold the scooter involved in the accident prior to the incident.

Dismissing the petition, the Court held:
“It is not in dispute that as on the date of the accident, the accused No.2 was the registered owner of the scooter. Though he has claimed that he sold the scooter, the Registration Certificate continues to stand in his name. For all practical purposes, he is the owner in the eyes of law.”

“Prima Facie Material Exists — Disputed Facts Cannot Be Adjudicated Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” Rules Court

The Court made it abundantly clear that the remedy under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not meant to evaluate disputed facts. It observed:
“Whether the petitioner had indeed transferred ownership or not, or whether he permitted the deceased to drive without a valid driving license, are matters of trial. This Court, while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot engage in a detailed fact-finding enquiry.”

Background of the Case: Death of a Woman Sparks Criminal Prosecution Against Registered Owner

The FIR arose from a tragic accident on 13th February 2023 at 8:30 AM near the HP petrol bunk on Kasturba Road, Bengaluru, where Sudha, while riding scooter KA-01/HW-1252, was hit by a goods vehicle (KA-04/9292) allegedly driven rashly by Accused No.1. The impact caused Sudha’s death on the spot.

The prosecution’s case also includes a serious allegation against Accused No.2 (the petitioner) — that he permitted the deceased to ride the scooter despite knowing that she did not hold a valid driving license, thereby constituting criminal negligence under Section 304-A IPC.

"RC Holder Remains Responsible — Sale Without Formal Transfer Is Legally Inconsequential," Clarifies Court

Rejecting the petitioner’s primary defence that the scooter had already been sold orally to the complainant, the Court observed:
“Mere oral agreements or informal handovers of the vehicle do not absolve the registered owner of legal responsibilities. Ownership transfer in motor vehicles is statutorily recognized only when the Registration Certificate (RC) is formally changed.”

The Court further held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the onus to ensure RC transfer lies squarely on the seller until the process is formally completed.

“Allegation That Vehicle Was Given To Person Without License Is Not Frivolous — Trial Necessary,” Observes Court

Referring to the prosecution’s allegation that the deceased was allowed to operate the scooter without a valid driving license, the Court remarked:
“Whether the petitioner wilfully permitted the deceased to drive knowing that she had no driving license is a serious allegation involving criminal negligence. This is not a mere technical issue but an offence impacting public safety. Such matters cannot be dismissed at the threshold.”

Court’s Order — No Interference Under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The High Court concluded:
“In light of the prima facie material, the accused No.2 cannot seek quashing of the criminal proceedings. He is at liberty to prove his defence at the trial.”

Accordingly, the Court passed the following order:
“The petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner is hereby rejected. The trial court is directed to proceed in accordance with law.”

The Court also directed the Registry to send a copy of the order to the trial court via email for immediate compliance.

This judgment reinforces a settled principle in motor accident jurisprudence:
The registered owner of a vehicle continues to be legally liable for statutory obligations, civil liabilities, and even potential criminal consequences until the Registration Certificate (RC) is formally transferred.

It also highlights that:

• Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an exceptional power to be used sparingly.

• Where disputed questions of fact exist, particularly regarding ownership and negligence, the proper forum for adjudication is the trial court.

In a strongly worded observation, the Court remarked:
“Permitting a person without a driving license to operate a motor vehicle is not merely a civil lapse — it carries criminal consequences under the law. Public safety is paramount, and courts cannot allow technical defences to frustrate the course of justice.”

Date of Decision: 16th June 2025