ORDER :

1. The present misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 485/2022 registered at Police Station Bilara, Jodhpur Rural for offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the count that he was present at the spot when the accident took place whereas the petitioner was not driving the vehicle which hit the deceased. In fact, the petitioner along with his relatives took the injured to the hospital in his car. In these circumstances, the FIR lodged by respondent No. 2 may be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of the petitioner.

4. I have considered the rival arguments and carefully gone through the case-diary.

5. A perusal of the case-diary reveals that at the time of accident, the petitioner was driving the vehicle which hit the deceased. The police after thorough investigation found the offence under Sections 279 & 304-A IPC proved against the petitioner.

6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Choudhary Bhajanlal & Ors. : [1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335], laid down guidelines for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and criminal proceedings. The Court held:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of th