The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash culpable homicide proceedings against a Mysuru resident whose 14-year-old son allegedly drove a car that crashed on the old Bengaluru-Mysuru road in December 2020, killing three members of a family.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, in an order dated October 16, said a motor vehicle’s steering wheel cannot become a child’s plaything and that a public road cannot be treated as a playground. The court held that parental responsibility could not be avoided when a minor was knowingly allowed to drive.
The case relates to a Volkswagen Vento entrusted to the father, Nadeem-Ur-Rehman, by his employer. The vehicle was allegedly being driven by his son when it was involved in the fatal accident. The victims were a couple and their five-year-old child.
Ur-Rehman had challenged the rejection of his discharge plea by a trial court and sought the quashing of proceedings against him under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, which concerns culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He was also facing allegations relating to other traffic violations.
The petitioner argued that his son had taken the vehicle without his knowledge. He submitted that the case could, at most, involve an offence based on rashness or negligence and should not be treated as culpable homicide. The prosecution opposed the petition, stating that material on record indicated the father had handed the car keys to his son and permitted him to drive. It also alleged that the minor had been allowed to drive on earlier occasions.
The High Court observed that a parent who knowingly hands car keys to a child cannot retreat behind the child’s minority after the incident results in fatalities. It said the question of whether the parent’s conduct amounted to negligence or culpable knowledge would have to be determined during the trial, rather than at the stage of quashing the proceedings.
The ruling places the responsibility for preventing underage driving within the wider enforcement chain around vehicle access. A minor’s ability to operate a car depends not only on the child’s conduct but also on whether an adult provides access to the vehicle and permits its use on public roads. The court’s observation therefore addresses the conduct of the vehicle owner or custodian alongside the crash itself.
The order also referred to road-safety data from Karnataka. Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the state recorded 751 accidents involving minors in 2025-26 and ranked sixth among all states on that measure. The order did not indicate that all those accidents involved minors driving cars, but cited the figure while underscoring the wider road-safety concern.
The criminal proceedings against Ur-Rehman will continue before the trial court. Whether his conduct meets the legal threshold for culpable homicide or amounts to a lesser traffic-related offence remains to be decided at trial.
