Judgment :- (This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.322/06 in the file of the court of JMFC INDL Bijapur Dist i.e., Ann-A and consequently also quash the charge sheet dated 25.5.2006, I.E, Ann-B filed by the R2, and R3, in crime No. 19/06 and grant any other relief.) Petitioner, questioning the correctness of the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.322/2006 on the file of the Court of JMFC, Indi Bijapur District and consequently also for quashing the charge sheet dated 25th May 2006 filed by respondents 2 and 3 in Crime No.19/2006 vide Annexures A and B, has presented the instant writ petition. 2. Facts in brief are that, the second and third respondents herein have registered a case in Crime No.19/2006 on 4th March 2006 on the complaint lodges by one Sri. Munish Kumar Pandit stating that, on 4th March 2006, at about 1 P.M. when he was running the motor lorry bearing No.HR-47/5733 from Chadachan towards Pandarapura when the vehicle was near the sales tax check post, the driver of the lorry No.HR-55/4347 has caused the accident and the said complaint was registered against the driver of the lorry bearing No.HR-47/5733 under Section 279, 304-A IPC read with Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is the further case of petitioner that, petitioner is neither the driver of the said vehicle bearing No.HR-47/5733 nor us related to the said incident as stated by the informant/complainant in the First Information Report. In the said FIR, the name of the petitioner is not mentioned nor there is any involvement of the petitioner. In the FIR, it is only stated that, walker is dead on account of the accident on 4th March 2006. Be that as it may, without any justification and without conducting proper investigation, respondents 2 and 3 have filed the charge sheet against the petitioner on 25th May 2006 under Section 279, read with Section 304-A IPC and Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, mentioning the petitioner as the accused person. Be that as it may, without any justification and without conducting proper investigation, respondents 2 and 3 have filed the charge sheet against the petitioner on 25th May 2006 under Section 279, read with Section 304-A IPC and Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, mentioning the petitioner as the accused person. The respondents 2 and 3 unlawfully as well as in total violation of the statutory provisions of law, have implicated the name of petitioner in the charge sheet instead of the name of the driver of the said vehicle and that, there is no investigation as such made by respondents 2 and 3 relating to the said incident and that, petitioner is totally an innocent person. On the basis of the charge sheet, the Court below accepted the charge as C.C.No.322/2006 registered in the Court of the J.M.F.C. Indi, Bijapur on the basis of the report of the respondents 2 and 3, wherein they have falsely implicated the petitioner by curbing the fundamental rights and liberty to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is constrained to redress his grievance by assailing the correctness of the entire proceedings of the charge sheet, as stated above. 3. The principal ground urged by learned counsel appearing for petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the respondents 2 and 3 have acted against the law and contrary to the facts of the case and hence, the impugned Annexures A and B are not all sustainable in law and are liable to be quashed. Further, he submitted that, it is obligatory on the part of respondents 2 and 3 to conduct enquiry about the driver of the vehicle and proceed with the case in accordance with law. Without doing that exercise, implicating the petitioner as accused instead of the driver of the lorry bearing No.HR-47/5733 Is not justifiable nor it is in accordance with law. Therefore, there is direct infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and there is no vicarious liability under the Criminal law and that for the acts of the lorry driver, the owner of the vehicle cannot be punished. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that, due to false implication of petitioner in the offence, the fundamental rights and liberty of the petitioner is infringed and the same are in total violation of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that, due to false implication of petitioner in the offence, the fundamental rights and liberty of the petitioner is infringed and the same are in total violation of the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Therefore, petitioner has presenting this petition, invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in the charge sheet, as referred above. 4. Per Contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents, has filed a detailed statement of objections and substantiated the registration of the criminal case against the petitioner and specifically contended that, on the basis of the investigation of one Chandrashekar, the Manager of Mahaveera Company (Transport) Bangalore and also the eye witnesses statement, it was confirmed that Shusheel Kumar S/o. Bheemsen Jain who was running lorry bearing No.47/5733 was accused who made accident and ran away on 4th March 2006 from the accident spot causing death of Santosh Kumar Jogi who was driver of lorry bearing No.HR-55/4347. Therefore, a case in Crime No.19/2006 was registered under Section 279 read with Section 304-A IPC and Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the petitioner. After conducting investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the matter is now seized before the Criminal Court. Therefore, when the matter is seized before the Criminal Court, this Court cannot adjudicate the factual aspects of the matter and the same is required to be considered after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file. Petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submitted that, in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in series of judgments, petitioner cannot invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court except in rarest to rare cases and this is not one such rare case. Hence, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be rejected. 5. Hence, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be rejected. 5. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents and after careful perusal of the grounds urged by petitioner and the stand taken by respondents in their statement of objections, as referred above, it reveals that, respondents 2 and 3, after thorough investigation of the case, have mentioned the name of the petitioner in the charge sheet, implicating the name of the petitioner in the charge sheet, implicating him as the accused person. In pursuance of the same, a charge sheet has been filed by respondents 2 and 3 in Crime .No.19/2006 and the matter is pending adjudication before the jurisdictional Criminal Court and is seized before the said Court. The only specific ground urged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner’s name is neither found in the first information Report (FIR) nor stated by the informant/complaint in his complaint and the authorities have filed charge sheet against the petitioner, who is the owner of the truck, instead of registering the case against the driver of the vehicle and proceeding with the case in accordance with law and the said action of respondents is not justifiable. The said contention and ground taken by the petitioner cannot be accepted at this stage, and it would be premature in nature for the simple reason that, the matter requires thorough trial by the jurisdictional Criminal Court and the matter should be decided after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on file. Therefore, interference by this Court, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction, is not justifiable nor this is an exceptional case, where this Court can interfere and quash the proceedings in the charge sheet nor petitioner has made out any valid or good grounds as such for interference. 6. Further, in case of Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) and another reported in A.I.R. 1999 SC P.3596, the Apex Court has held at paragraph 16 that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code of quashing and investigation, the Court should bear in mind what has been observed in the State of Kerala Vs. State (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) and another reported in A.I.R. 1999 SC P.3596, the Apex Court has held at paragraph 16 that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code of quashing and investigation, the Court should bear in mind what has been observed in the State of Kerala Vs. O.C. Kuttan (1999) 1 JT (SC) 486 which reads thus: “Having said so, the Court gave a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing the criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases: that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or other wise of the allegation made in the F.I.R. or the complaint that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice. It is too well settled that the first information report is only an initiation to move the machinery and to investigate into a cognizable offence and, therefore, while exercising the power and deciding whether the investigation itself should be quashed, utmost care should be taken by the Court and at that stage, it is not possible for the Court to shift the materials or to weigh the materials and then come to the conclusion one way or the other. In the case of State or U.P. V.O.P. Sharma (1996) 2 JT (SC) 488, a three - Judge Bench of this Court indicated that the High Court should be loath to interfere at the threshold to thwart the prosecution exercising its inherent power under Section 482 or under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be and allow the law to take its own course….” (emphasis supplied). The aforesaid view is reiterated by yet another three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the Case in Rashmi Kumar Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1996) 11 JT (SC) 175, wherein the Court observed that, the power under Articles 226 and 227 should be sparingly and cautiously exercised only when the Court is of the opinion that otherwise there will be gross miscarriage of justice. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1996) 11 JT (SC) 175, wherein the Court observed that, the power under Articles 226 and 227 should be sparingly and cautiously exercised only when the Court is of the opinion that otherwise there will be gross miscarriage of justice. Further, it had also observed that, social stability and order is required to be regulated by proceeding against the offender as it is an offence against the society as a whole. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, this court cannot interfere in the instant writ petition and quash the proceedings 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision of the apex Court reported in (1998) 5 Supreme Court Cases 749 in the case of Pepsi Food Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and others and submitted that, this Court can entertain the writ petition and exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and quash the proceedings if it infringes the fundamental rights of the accused. After carefully going through the said judgments of the Apex Court, I am of the opinion that, the said judgment of the apex Court cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case when there is the latest judgment of the Apex Court as referred above, following the three judgment bench decision, referred above. 8. Therefore, taking into account all these relevant factors into consideration, I am of considered view that, this not one such case, where this Court can exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction, as sought for by petitioner in the instant writ petition. Therefore, I decline to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Further, it is significant to note that, it is purely disputed question of fact and they have to be gone in to only after thorough appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on file and after conducting thorough enquiry in view of the nature of case on hand, as referred above. 9. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed reserving liberty to petitioner to redress his grievance before the jurisdictional Criminal Court.