JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 16.2.93, whereby he has affirmed the order of trial court taking cognizance against the petitioner under section 279 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.9.92, one Fiat car No. RJ 3C 2415 was standing at the Rambagh Petrol Pump for the purpose of filling air in wheels. One another Maruti car No. DL 3 CB 2653 was also standing for the purpose of filling petrol. After taking petrol, Aarti drove Maruti car towards the compressor for filling air, in the wheels of Maruti car. After filling the air by driver of Fiat car, he drove the car reverse side and thereby hit at the back door of Maruti car and damaged the back door. On that, brother of Aarti, who is not eye witness of the incident, lodged FIR in Police Station Ashok Nagar. During investigation, it is found that the aforesaid Fiat car belongs to one Sajjan Raj Surana son of Shri Sukanraj Surana. During investigation, the police has prepared the site plan and also recorded the statements of Shri Joiswil Frid Jaksan, Smt. Aarti, who was driving the Maruti car at the relevant time, Shri Satya Narain and Shri Rianuddin and the challan was filed. Thereafter, the cognizance has been taken by the Addl. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur City, Jaipur against the petitioner for the offence under section 279 IPC. Against that order, he preferred the revision in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Learned Sessions Judge has also upheld the order of trial court. 3. Being dissatisfied with the orders of courts below, the petitioner has filed this misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Public Prosecutor that when the petitioner has approached to the court of learned Sessions Judge under section 397 Cr.P.C., and when no second revision is permissible, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained as the entertainment of such petition will result in circumventing the statutory provisions of Section 397 of Code Criminal Procedure. 5. Shri Jain submits that even after the decision of Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & ors. 5. Shri Jain submits that even after the decision of Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & ors. v. Smt. Ramshri & ors.(1993 Cr.L.R. (SC) 189) , this Court has entertained the petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C., even when revision petition is dismissed by revisional court and he placed reliance on the order of this Court in the case of Kalu and ors. v. State of Raj. & ors.(S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 728/1993) decided on 26.10.1993 . In that case, this Court has observed as under "The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and confers inherent powers on the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. The scope of both these provisions is different. Under section 397 Cr.P.C. the High Court or any Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such subordinate courts. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. arc to be exercised by the High Court alone when it considers that it is necessary to pass any order to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It can be said that if the circumstances provided under section 482 Cr.P.C. exist then the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained. Otherwise if it is in the nature of second revision then it cannot be entertained." 6. Considering the view taken by this Court in the case of Kalu (supra) that is after the decision of Apex Court in case of Dharampal (supra), the preliminary objection of learned Public Prosecutor is rejected, and I, proceed to decide the petition on merits. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.C. Jain submitted that for the offence under section 279 IPC, one should drive vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. The petitioner was not driving the vehicle, as enumerated under section 279 IPC. M.C. Jain submitted that for the offence under section 279 IPC, one should drive vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. The petitioner was not driving the vehicle, as enumerated under section 279 IPC. Not only that, even nothing has been come on record that the petitioner was driving vehicle at the relevant time. 8. I have perused the material on record which has been collected during investigation by the I.O. There is no iota of evidence on record to the effect that the petitioner Shri Sajjan Raj Surana was driving the vehicle at the relevant time i.e. at 9.45 a.m., at Rambagh Petrol Pump. Even the learned Public Prosecutor has failed to show any evidence which connects Shri Sajjan Raj Surana with the crime except the fact that he is the owner of the Fiat car No. RJ 3C 2415. 9. For taking cognizance against the petitioner, the ownership of the Fiat car in question is not enough. Mere ownership of car which met in accident by itself is not a crime. For offence under section 279 IPC, it is necessary that there should be a material on record that Shri Sajjan Raj Surana was driving the car at the time of incident. The statements of all these witnesses recorded during trial only state that one driver of Fiat car No. DL 3CB 2653, while driving at reverse side, hit a Maruti car No. RJ 3C 2415. Even Aarti, who was in Maruti car has not named Shri Surana, no identification parade is conducted to connect the accused with the crime. When there is no dispute on facts, that Shri Surana has not been named in the FIR, nor there is any identification parade to connect him with the crime that he was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, no cognizance can be taken against the petitioners. 10. Considering the above submissions, I am of the opinion that no prima facie case is made out against the accused petitioner Shri Surana to proceed with the trial on the basis of material on record. 11. Therefore, the order of trial court taking cognizance and the order of learned Sessions Judge affirming it are quashed. 12. The petition is allowed as indicated above. *******