Signing you in

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

A view of the High Court of Karnataka. File | Photo Credit: The Hindu

“The message of the law must equally be unambiguous. A parent who knowingly places the steering wheel in the hands of a child cannot always retreat behind the minority of that child, when the adventure ends in catastrophe. Parenthood carries not merely affection and authority, but responsibility. Roads are shared public spaces, not training grounds for unlawful indulgence,” the Court said.

Further, the Court said that “when parental indulgence knowingly permits a child incapable in law of driving to command a machine capable of causing death, and precious lives are consequently lost, the law is entitled to inquire, upon evidence, whether the conduct was merely negligent or had crossed the frontier into culpable knowledge. That enquiry, in the case at hand, deserves a trial and not a premature burial at the stage of discharge.”

Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while dismissing a criminal petition filed by Nadeem of Mysuru, who sought to quash the charge sheet against him under Section 304 Part-II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The petition was restricted solely against the charge of culpable homicide, which attracts imprisonment up to 10 years, as the petitioner did not challenge the other connected offences, attracting lesser punishments.

The petitioner had contended that his son took the car without his knowledge or consent and that, at best, the material could only support a charge of negligence, not culpable homicide, which requires knowledge that the act was likely to cause death.

However, the Court noted that the charge sheet materials indicate that the petitioner was in the habit of permitting his minor son to drive the car repeatedly, himself had handed over the keys to his 14-year-old son on that day of the incident.

The Court noted that the petitioner was not behind the wheel, but the alleged act of ‘consciously entrusting’ a vehicle to a legally incompetent child is a positive act that could attract the requisite knowledge.

“If a parent consciously places a motor vehicle in the hands of a 14-year-old child, knowing fully well that the child is legally incompetent and manifestly unequipped to drive it upon a public road, the question whether such conduct carries with it the requisite knowledge of likely fatal consequences cannot be foreclosed at the threshold stage of trial,” the Court observed while pointing out that a trial essential in this case to establish, or otherwise, the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Noticing that Karnataka recorded 751 such accidents involving minors during 2025-26, Justice Nagaprasanna said, “the rising incidence of such accidents, therefore, reinforces the need for courts to exercise circumspection before interdicting a prosecution at its threshold where the charge sheet itself contains material, prima facie, indicating conscious entrustment of the vehicle to a minor.”

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.