Vehicle Owner Liable Despite Sale If RC Not Transferred: Karnataka HC [Read Order]

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant ruling: a vehicle owner whose name continues to appear on the Registration Certificate (RC) cannot seek quashing of criminal proceedings in a fatal accident case, even if he claims to have sold the vehicle.

Justice J.M. Khazi made this crucial observation while rejecting a petition filed by Mr. Prabhakaran K., who sought to quash criminal proceedings against him in connection with a fatal scooter accident.

The court was hearing a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the petitioner sought discharge from Cr.No.19/2023 of Cubbon Park Traffic PS, for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The case involved a tragic incident that occurred on February 13, 2023, at 8:30 a.m., when the deceased, Sudha, was riding a scooter to drop her son. The court noted, “When she was near the HP petrol bunk on Kasturba Road, accused No.1, being the driver of goods vehicle No.KA-04/9292 (‘offending vehicle’ for short), drove it in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which Sudha sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.”

In his defense, the petitioner argued that “the charge sheet is not maintainable. He had already sold the vehicle to the complainant with the understanding that the RC would be transferred. In fact, the complainant has taken interim custody of the vehicle.”

He further contended, “None of the allegations made in the charge sheet are applicable to accused No.2. He has been included only to harass him. Continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the court.”

However, the prosecution maintained that the petitioner, being the registered owner of scooter No.KA-01/HW-1252, remained responsible. The court recorded the specific allegation: “The allegations against accused No.2 are that he allowed deceased Sudha to drive the scooter despite knowing that she did not possess a driving license.”

In delivering the judgment, Justice Khazi emphasized the legal position: “It is not in dispute that, as on the date of the accident, accused No.2 was the registered owner of the scooter. Though he claims to have sold it and that the complainant got interim custody, the RC still stands in his name.”

The court concluded, “For all practical purposes, he is the owner of the scooter in question. In light of the prima facie material, accused No.2 cannot seek quashing of the criminal proceedings.”

The petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to present his defense during trial. Justice Khazi stated, “He is at liberty to prove his defence at the trial. In the result, the petition fails.”

Smt. Rachana M., Advocate for Sri Appu Kumar, appeared for the petitioner, while Sri Venkat Satyanarayan A., HCGP, appeared for the State.

Case Title: Prabhakaran K. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

[Read Order]