The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a charge under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a father whose 14-year-old son allegedly drove a car involved in a fatal road accident that claimed three lives. Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the prosecution material contained sufficient preliminary grounds for the charge to proceed to trial.
The Court clarified that the father's criminal liability would depend on whether the prosecution could establish the necessary knowledge that the alleged conduct was likely to cause death.
Background
The case arose from an accident on December 10, 2020, on the Mysuru–Bengaluru Road. According to the prosecution, the petitioner's minor son took a Volkswagen Vento car entrusted to his father by his employer and allegedly drove it rashly, colliding with a two-wheeler. Three people, including a woman, her husband and their young child, died, while another child sustained injuries.
The police initially registered a case under Sections 279, 304A and 337 of the IPC, along with provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 304 Part II was subsequently added, and the father was named as accused No. 2.
He approached the High Court after the Sessions Court rejected his discharge application. His challenge was limited to the culpable homicide charge, arguing that the material did not establish the knowledge required to prosecute him under that provision.
The State opposed the petition, alleging that the father had handed the car keys to his underage son and permitted him to drive. It argued that the allegations required examination at trial rather than termination of the charge at the preliminary stage.
The High Court examined Supreme Court precedents distinguishing death caused by rash or negligent conduct from culpable homicide. It emphasised that Section 304 Part II requires knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, even when there is no intention to cause death.
The Court observed,
“The distinction does not lie merely in the enormity of the consequence, for death may unfortunately be the consequence under either provision; the distinction lies in the mental element that precedes the act.”
It further explained that the knowledge of the person driving could not automatically be attributed to the father merely because of their relationship. However, the alleged act of entrusting a vehicle to a minor, together with the surrounding circumstances, had to be assessed on the available prosecution material.
The Court cautioned against deciding disputed factual questions through a premature examination of the case at the discharge stage.
Rejecting the petition, the High Court held that the father could not secure the removal of the Section 304 Part II charge at this stage. It clarified that the trial court must independently determine his culpability on the evidence presented, without being influenced by the observations made in the order.
The Court expressed no final conclusion on his guilt.
Case Details
- Case Title: Nadeem Ur Rehman v. State of Karnataka and Another
- Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 10711 of 2026
- Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
- Decision Date: October 16, 2026
