Judgment : The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.448 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur. 2. He is the Assistant Professor in Jamal Mohammed College, Trichy. He married one Dhanalakshmi about one and a half years prior to the date of occurrence, which happened on 23. 1988. They were living together at Trichy and they had no issues. On 23. 1988, the petitioner and his wife, to worship Velankanni shrine, went from Trichy to Velankanni in T.V.S moped XL bearing registration number TAY 4029. They spend that night at Velankanni. On 23. 1988, both the petitioner and his wife started from Velankanni and en route came to Thanjavur. After taking lunch there, they proceeded towards Trichy. When the vehicle was going near Sukkambar a place near Kallanai at 3 P.M., the wife seated on the pillion fell down from the vehicle. At that time, one Marudambal was grazing her cattle near the place and on seeing the accident, she rushed to the place. In the meantime, the petitioner alighting the vehicle came to the rescue of his wife. Water brought by her was sprinkled on her face. Thereafter, the injured-wife was taken by the petitioner in a bus leaving moped in the place of accident. The injured was admitted in the Government Hospital at Trichy and despite treatment, she succumbed to the injuries. The petitioner, subsequent to the admission of the injured-wife also lodged a report before Thokkur Police Station, which was registered in Crime No. 132 of 1988 and after completing the formalities of the investigation, a final report under Sec. 173(2), Cr.P.C. had been laid before Court for the alleged offence under Sec.304-A, I.P.C. against the petitioner, which was taken on file as C.C.No.448 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur. 3. On receipt of process, the petitioner had come forward with the present action invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the materials collected in the shape of Sec. 161, Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses, apart from the materials furnished in the report under Sec. 173, Cr.P.C, do not at all indicate that the petitioner had committed the offence under Sec.304-A, I.P.C. and therefore it is that the criminal proceedings initiated against him are liable to be quashed. 5. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, repel such a submission. 6. The lone and sole eye witness available in this case is one Marudambal, who was stated to be grazing the cattle near the accident spot. A perusal of her statement indicates that the road was very clear then, in the sense of there being no traffic at all. It would further reveal that while the petitioner was going along the road riding T.V.S moped with his wife - the victim seated on the pillion, she saw the wife falling to the ground while the vehicle was moving and her husband -the petitioner immediately halting the vehicle and rushing to the rescue of his wife. She would, however, state that the vehicle was proceeding with some speed. The terminology used by her in expressing the speed of the vehicle at the relevant point of time, namely, cannot by itself indicate that the vehicle in question was proceeding in such a breakneck speed amounting to rash driving. It is not as if there was so much of traffic in the road and her statement would clearly reveal that the road was free from traffic and therefore the petitioner would be in a position to negotiate his driving in such a speed as not to imperil his life or the life of his wife, the victim. 7. There are other materials indicating the possibility of the wife slipping from the vehicle accidentally while the vehicle was in motion. The brother and sister of the victim, namely, one Shankar and Gomathi came to the hospital on coming to know of the accident and to them, the victim deceased is said to have stated that she fell on the ground by way of an accidental slip from the moped resulting in her sustaining the injuries. Their Sec.161, Crl.P.C. statements clearly reveal this aspect of the matter. 8. As such, the materials, as available on record, do not at all indicate any rashness or negligence on the part of the petitioner in driving the vehicle at the relevant time of accident calling for his trial for the offence under Sec.304-A, I.P.C. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.448 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur, shall stand quashed.