A serving District Judge has been booked under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act as registered owner of a Mercedes-Benz that his 17-year-old son allegedly drove into a scooter in Kochi at about 2:20 AM on October 25. The rider, aged 55, died.
Kochi: Kerala Police have booked a judge, in his capacity as registered owner of the car, under Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the Kochi Mercedes crash that killed 55-year-old roadside eatery owner Jayabalakrishnan at Cheranalloor on October 25. The car allegedly ran over his scooter, with the judge’s 17-year-old son allegedly at the wheel. The investigation has since passed to the District Crime Branch.
Booking a serving judicial officer
Kochi City Police Commissioner S. Kaliraj Mahesh Kumar said the procedure laid down for proceeding against a serving judicial officer had been followed, and that formal communications went to the Kerala High Court and the Principal District Judge in line with Supreme Court guidelines. In his words:
“We have booked the RC owner under the specific provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.”
He called the death “unacceptable” and said the strictest lawful action would follow. The local police no longer hold the case; it has been given to the District Crime Branch for a comprehensive probe. According to reports, the case against the judge was registered after the High Court gave administrative clearance.
The High Court’s inquiry into his role
The Kerala High Court has sought a report on the judicial officer’s role. Media reports say the portfolio judge concerned has recommended his suspension and a detailed inquiry, and that the final call rests with the High Court’s Administrative Committee. No suspension order has been reported. Apart from the Section 199A case, a departmental inquiry is expected to examine whether his conduct amounted to misconduct.
The crash and the case against the teenager
According to police, the car hit Jayabalakrishnan’s scooter from behind at about 2:20 AM on Container Road near Maraparambu, as he was riding home after closing his eatery. He died at the spot. Early evidence reportedly suggests the car was doing more than 100 km/h, and the teenager held no driving licence.
The first case was registered under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), for rash driving and causing death by negligence, and the boy was let off on station bail. The family and local residents then protested. Police added Section 105 BNS, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, took him into custody again and produced him before the Juvenile Justice Board in Ernakulam, which granted him bail, noting that he had no previous criminal record. Police have said they will approach the Sessions Court to seek cancellation of that bail.
What Section 199A says
Section 199A deems the guardian of a juvenile, or the owner of the vehicle, guilty of an offence under the Act committed by the juvenile, unless the guardian or owner proves that the offence took place without their knowledge or that they exercised all due diligence to prevent it.
The provision was inserted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019. It carries imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to Rs 25,000 for the guardian or owner; the vehicle’s registration can be cancelled for 12 months, and the juvenile cannot get a driving licence or learner’s licence until the age of 25. The law presumes the juvenile used the vehicle with the consent of the guardian or owner. The teenager has reportedly told police he took the car without his parents’ knowledge, which bears directly on whether that presumption can be rebutted.
Alleged lapses and the family’s allegations
ADGP (Law and Order) P. Vijayan has issued a memo asking the Commissioner to explain alleged lapses in the early handling of the case, and has sought a report on administrative and investigative shortcomings. In the Assembly, Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala acknowledged that the police had made initial lapses and directed action against the vehicle’s owner.
The victim’s family has alleged a cover-up, including that the officer went to the police station after the crash and pressed for action on mobile-phone evidence. These are the family’s allegations. They are under investigation, and the judge’s response is not on record.
Related cases, and why names are withheld
The crash came two weeks after a Mini Cooper hit a scooter near Nedumbassery on October 11, killing all three people on it. Comparisons have also been drawn with the 2024 Pune Porsche crash, in which a minor’s father and others were prosecuted.
Because the driver is a child in conflict with the law, Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 bars disclosure of any information that may lead to his identification. LawChakra is therefore not naming him, his father or the father’s posting.
The allegations against the judge and his son are untested. Both are presumed innocent, and LawChakra expresses no view on the merits.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
Case: Crime registered at Cheranalloor police station, now with the District Crime Branch, Kochi City
Provisions: Sections 281, 106(1) and 105 BNS (against the juvenile); Section 199A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (against the registered owner)
Forum: Juvenile Justice Board, Ernakulam
Date of incident: October 25, 2026