JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed against the order dated 18.1.2008 passed by the revisional Court setting aside the order of the trial Court taking cognizance under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C. 2. The short facts of the case are that on 4.12.1999 a case was registered at Police Station, Guda on the statement of injured Lal Chand that on 4.12.1999, deceased Jagmal Singh and Lal Chand, both were going on motor cycle from Udaipurvati to Guda. Near Raghunath Pura and Posana, a jeep driven negligently, hit the motor cycle from behind. Jagmal Singh died in the way when he was being taken to the hospital. On this statement, F.I.R. No. 325/1999 was registered for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A I.P.C. and after investigation, challan was filed against respondent No. 2, Ashok Kumar and cognizance was taken against him. 3. On revision, the revisional Court quashed the order taking cognizance and discharged the respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by this, the present petition has been filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The main contention of the present petitioner is that a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was served to the registered owner, Ghasilal in response to which reply was filed and it is clear that the respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. 6. A bare perusal of reply to notice goes to show that it was never stated in the reply to the notice that the respondent No. 2 was driving the jeep at the relevant time or relevant place. 7. The next contention of the present petitioner is that the statement of eye-witness Laxman Singh was recorded during trial and he has clearly stated against the present petitioner. 8. Generally, this Court does not go into the nicety of the evidence but here, the facts are very peculiar and strange statement of Laxman Singh was recorded six months after the incident and that too on the application of Bhagirath, brother of deceased Jagmal Singh. Bhagirath submitted an application that Laxman has seen the occurrence and it was also stated in the application that if challan is not presented in the particular case, heirs of deceased Jagmal Singh will not get any motor accident claim. Bhagirath submitted an application that Laxman has seen the occurrence and it was also stated in the application that if challan is not presented in the particular case, heirs of deceased Jagmal Singh will not get any motor accident claim. Hence, it is clear that this design has been created just to strengthen the motor accident claim of deceased Jagmal Singh. Laxman has not been named as eye-witness in the F.I.R. or in the statement of injured Lal Chand. Other witness Ramlal and others had come to the place of occurrence just after the accident and they did not show the presence of Laxman. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent No. 2 or impugned vehicle has not been named in the F.I.R. or in the statement of any witness. Thus, it is a clear case of false implication and the learned revisional Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion. 9. Hence, in view of the above, it is not a fit case to interfere in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. 10. The stay petition also stands disposed of. 11. The D.G., Police is directed to. initiate proceedings against the Investing Officer for this false implication.Petition dismissed. *******