A case booked by Kerala Police for alleged juvenile driving has triggered controversy after CCTV footage surfaced, prompting the scooter owner to allege harassment, defamation and fabrication of facts in the FIR.

FIR based on ‘reckless driving’ claim

According to the FIR, Vidyanagar police intercepted a scooter on NH 66 service road near Cherkala, claiming it was being driven “recklessly and carelessly” by a 16-year-old boy. The scooter was impounded and its owner, Majida Nasreen (19), a BPharm student, was booked under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Motor Vehicles Act, carrying penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment and a ₹25,000 fine.

Family contests police version

Majida and her family deny the allegation. They claim Majida herself was riding the scooter, with her younger brother as pillion, to a pharmacy training session. CCTV footage from nearby establishments allegedly shows Majida parking the scooter and both siblings walking away, with the boy returning briefly to the parked vehicle moments before a police jeep stopped.

The family alleges the police refused to consider their explanation, made Majida sign documents, seized the scooter and left the siblings stranded. They later obtained CCTV footage to support their version and submitted it to senior officers.

Police response and inquiry

Sub-inspector Anoop S, who registered the case, said he believed the boy was riding the scooter as he was holding the key and claimed to have seen him riding earlier. District Police Chief B V Vijaya Bharat Reddy acknowledged a lapse in how details were recorded in the FIR but said there was no malicious intent, citing rising juvenile driving cases in Kasaragod.

He confirmed that the Special Branch Deputy SP has been asked to inquire and said the FIR could be quashed if found baseless, with possible departmental action against the officer concerned.

Larger questions on accountability

The episode has reignited debate on police accountability and the practice of “filling gaps” in FIRs. For Majida, now preparing legal action, the case highlights how surveillance cameras can challenge official narratives—and why procedural fairness matters, even in so-called petty cases.