The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to quash a chargesheet against the father of a 14-year-old boy accused of driving a car that killed three people on the Bengaluru-Mysuru Road in December 2020. The court said public roads cannot become a playground for minors and that those responsible for allowing underage driving cannot automatically claim legal protection when a tragedy occurs.
The petition was filed by Nadeem Ur Rahman, 51, who sought the cancellation of the chargesheet filed by police at the N.R. police station in Mysuru. The case relates to allegations that his son drove a Volkswagen Vento near the Dandinamaramma Temple on the Bengaluru-Mysuru Road on the night of December 10, 2020.
According to the chargesheet cited in the proceedings, Ramesh, 40, his wife Usha, 30, and their five-year-old son Monish were travelling by motorcycle when the car allegedly driven at high speed by the minor crashed into them. All three died in the accident.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s lawyer argued that the case should be treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder and that the chargesheet should therefore be quashed. The prosecution opposed the plea, arguing that the chargesheet established that the father had personally handed the car keys to his underage son.
The prosecution also submitted that the father reached the location after learning about the accident and took his son away. On that basis, it argued that the case required a full trial rather than being dismissed at the preliminary stage.
In its judgment, the High Court described the incident as heartbreaking and said laws prohibiting minors from driving were not enacted merely as a formality. The court observed that untrained people who are legally disqualified from driving can cause serious consequences on public roads, and those responsible for enabling such driving cannot be given protection from the resulting proceedings.
The court also rejected the argument that the incident should be treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It referred to the distinction between Section 304 Part II and Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, stating that the two provisions separately reflect the consequences of reckless and negligent conduct.
The ruling does not determine guilt in the underlying criminal case. It allows the prosecution to proceed against the accused on the basis of the chargesheet and the evidence that will be examined during trial. The case places parental responsibility and the enforcement of restrictions on underage driving at the centre of a fatal road-safety proceeding in Karnataka.
