'Minors Drive For Reels, Put Lives At Risk': Karnataka High Court In Father's Plea Over Deaths Allegedly Caused By 14-Yr-Old Son

Expressing concern over underage driving, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on a criminal petition filed by a father seeking to quash the charge of culpable homicide (Section 304 Part II of IPC) against him.

The petition arises from a tragic 2020 accident where the petitioner's 14-year-old son allegedly took his car and mowed down three members of a family on the Mysuru-Bengaluru Highway.

Hearing the matter, the single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made sharp oral observations, terming the incident 'unpardonable' and questioning the father's accountability.

“…The case is that the father was not aware that the minor child has taken the car and gone and killed someone. This is unpardonable. You are a father; you are responsible. You cannot allow your 14-year-old child to drive the car, kill someone, and come to court”, the court remarked.

The court further highlighted the menace of minors driving vehicles for social media reels, stating:

 “…This has become rampant today. For the purpose of reels, children below 18 are driving cars in the manner they want…for the purpose of reels.. This results in somebody's life being treated so casually that their lives are gone.”

The petitioner, an Assistant Sales Manager at Volkswagen at the time of the incident, is Accused No. 2 in the crime registered by the Narasimharaja Traffic Police Station, Mysuru. The trial is currently pending before the District and Sessions Court, Mysuru.

The prosecution alleges that on the day of the incident, the petitioner's minor son took the car, and rammed it into a bike near Dandi Maramma Temple, killing three members of a family.

The petitioner submitted to the court at the outset that he is not challenging the charges under the Motor Vehicles Act (Sections 5(1), 180, and 199A) for which the maximum punishment would be 3 years.

However, the counsel vehemently argued that the graver charge of Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) cannot be sustained against the father merely for a lapse or inaction.

“…Fact of the matter is that it was done without my knowledge. The Apex Court in the Shanthibai case has held that mere lapse or inaction would not amount to 304 unless there is a positive act from the side of the accused. It is not the case here,”. the petitioner's counsel submitted.

He argued that the 'causa causantis' (proximate cause) principle requires a positive act of handing over the vehicle, which is absent, as he was at his workplace when the minor took the keys. He pointed out that the chargesheet does not mention that he was present in the house when the car was taken out.

Opposing the petition, the SPP argued that the father's accountability is established by the child's access to the car keys.

SPP added that prosecution witnesses have stated that the petitioner allowed the minor to use the vehicle.

The court has reserved the matter for orders.

Case Title: Shri. Nadeem Ur Rehman vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: CRL.P 10711/2026