JUDGMENT

P.K. Tripathy, J. - In this application under Section 482. Cr. P.C. petitioner prays to quash the order of cognizance passed against him in G.R. Case No. 152 of 1998 which, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, has been wrongly typed as G.R. Case No. 154 of 1998 in paragraph I, of the application under Section 482. Cr. P.C. That G.R. case is pending in the Court of S.D.J.M. Dhenkanal. That case has been registered and cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 279/304-A. I.P.C.

2. There is no dispute at the Bar that on 16-3-1998 at about 6.15 P.M. there was an accident between a jeep bearing Registration No. OR-06-A0414. 'on the National Highway (N.H. 42), as a result of which the driver and the pillion rider of the scooter suffered death, one instantaneously and the other a short time thereafter. It is also not dispute at the Bar that the aforesaid jeep belongs to the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department (in short, 'RWSS') and was under the custody of the petitioner as the Assistant Engineer of Kamakshyanagar, though the owner as per the record is the Executive Engineer of the said department. It is also not disputed at the Bar that one Maheswar Patra by the time of accident was the driver of that Government jeep. Such facts are noted and mentioned in the report of the M.V.I. as well as in the case diary.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Inspector-in-charge of Dhenkanal Town P.S. for no reason explained on record took over charge of the investigation from the original Investigating Officer, made out a Case to describe the petitioner as the driver of the Jeep. at the time of the accident and submitted the charge sheet accordingly though there does not exist a prima facie Case for the aforesaid offences against him. His contention is that the above named driver of the vehicle was driving that jeep on the date and at the time of accident and he absconded from the spot but no effort was made by the concerned I.I.C. either to trace or examine him before submission of the Final Form in the aforesaid manner. Petitioner has further stated and has also filed additional affidavit that because of absconding of the above named driver from the time of the aforesaid accident from the office of the Executive Engineer notice was issued to him on 26-3-1998 and also news item was, published in the daily 'Dharitri' calling upon him to report in the office and because of such non-appearance he was put under suspension and that has been challenged by the said driver in the Orissa State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1461 (C) of 2001. So far as issue of notice to the said driver about his order of suspension and pendency of the original application, learned counsel for the State does not dispute.

4. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand argues that since the statement of two witnesses who were examined on 25-3-1998 and 10-4-1998, clearly indicates that petitioner was driving the jeep at the time of accident, therefore, the plea of the petitioner can be considered as his defence plea at the time of trial and in view of existence of prima-facie, case the criminal proceeding is not liable to be quashed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482. Cr. P.C.

5. It is the settled position of law and not disputed at the Bar that inherent power should be invoked in a case where the Court finds abuse of process of law or abuse of process of Court. Similarly, such provision should be resorted to when the Court shall find that interference with the complained order is necessary in the interest of justice.

6. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle and perusing the, case diary, it appears that the first Investigating Officer, after recording the F.I.R. at 8.30 P.M. on 16-3-1998 reached at the spot of occurrence not only on that date and examined two witnesses who are the owners of grocery shop and tea stall nearby the spot of occurrence but also after examining the petitioner on 18-3-1998