Judgment: This petition is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure 1. Annexure A1 is the registration of the crime for driving a scooter in a drunken stage thereby attracting the offences under Ss.184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In order to sustain an offence under these sections the first condition to be satisfied is that it should be a motor vehicle. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me that the vehicle involved in the incident is a BSA Street Rider that is a electrical two wheeler without pedal assistance. It is also seen that the vehicle has 30 minutes power of only 0.223 KW. It is also stated in the Test Report 8 conclusion that the test vehicle model BSA Street Rider does not deem to be a motor vehicle for compliance to CMVR requirements as per the exemption criteria specified. In order to satisfy that it is a motor vehicle, it has to be decided whether it come within the ambit of the definition of the motor vehicle as enumerated under S.2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. "Motor vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use of only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty five cubic centimetres". Now we find that the engine capacity of the present vehicle is only 23 cubic centimetres. Since it is less than 25 cubic centimeters and it is a vehicle with less than four wheels S.2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act will not cover such a vehicle. The learned counsel had also drawn my attention to the Central Motor Vehicle Rules especially R.2(u) which also holds that it cannot be treated as a motor vehicle. Therefore it has to be held that the vehicle involved is not a motor vehicle as contemplated in order to attract the offence under Ss. The learned counsel had also drawn my attention to the Central Motor Vehicle Rules especially R.2(u) which also holds that it cannot be treated as a motor vehicle. Therefore it has to be held that the vehicle involved is not a motor vehicle as contemplated in order to attract the offence under Ss. 184 and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as it is outside the purview of the motor vehicle the offence cannot be attracted under those provisions. Therefore the registration of the crime under the said provisions cannot be sustained and so the F.I.R. 38/2009 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station is liable to be quashed and I do so. The Crl. M.C. is allowed.