1. - This criminal revision petition under section 397 Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the accused-petitioner with a prayer that the order dated 9.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No.31/2000 (22/2000) by which he ordered that charge for offence under section 304 Indian Penal Code be framed against the present accused-petitioner and in consequence of that, he framed charge for offence under section 304 Indian Penal Code be quashed and set aside and in the alternative, charge for offence under section 304A Indian Penal Code should have been framed.

2. It arises in the following circumstances :

(i) That one Bhanwar Lal lodged a written report on 29.2.2000 with the Police Station Bhanipura stating inter alia that on 28.2.2000 his brother Tiloka Ram (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') had gone to Sardarshahar in his jeep No. RJ 31-C/1794. It was further stated in the report that on 29.2.2000 at about 1.00 p.m. when he reached near the bus- stand Sehjasar and was taking tea in a shop, the deceased came in his jeep from the side of Sardarshahar and at that time, Banwari Lal was also with him and he stopped the jeep near the turn. It was further stated in the report that thereafter the accused- petitioner came in his Jeep No. HR-20F/2217 and dashed against the jeep of the deceased and when the deceased went near jeep of the accused-petitioner and tried to board the jeep of the accused-petitioner, the jeep of the accused-petitioner capsized and the deceased died on the spot.

(ii) On this report, initially the police registered a case under section 304-A and 279 Indian Penal Code, but after usual investigation challan was filed for offence under section 304 Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar on 22.4.2002.

(iii) Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Churu and the same was later on transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Churn who through impugned order dated 9.5.2002 framed charge for offence under section 304 Indian Penal Code inter alia holding :

(a) That offence under section 304 Indian Penal Code was prima facie found proved against the accused-petitioner.

(b) That the argument raised by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner that since LRs of deceased had filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nohar under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and from that fact alone, it cannot be presumed that the case for offence under section 304-A and 279 Indian Penal Code was prima facie made out and that argument was rejected.

(iv) Aggrieved from the order dated 9.5.2002, this revision petition has been preferred by the accused-petitioner.

3. In this revision petition, the main submission of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is that since FIR No. 8/2000 of the police station Bhanipura was registered for offence under section 279 and 304-A Indian Penal Code and therefore, framing of charge for offence under section 304 Indian Penal Code was absolutely erroneous one and further when the legal representatives of the deceased had filed a claim petition, therefore, framing of charge against the accused-petitioner for offence under section 304 Indian Penal Code was without jurisdiction and hence the impugned order dated 9.5.2002 should be set aside.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order dated 9.5.2002 and submitted that same does not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and hence does not call for any interference by this Court.

5. Heard and perused the case file.

6. It may be stated hence that the claim petition has been filed by Legal Representatives of the deceased, namely, Chando W/o Tiloka Ram and Devi Lal and Gadu Ram both sons of Tiloka Ram against the accused-petitioner as being driver and against Baldeva Ram owner of the jeep and against United India Insurance Company and ther