ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed on 09.11.2022 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to quash S.C.No.58 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, Karur District. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the first respondent-police stating that a JCB bearing Registration No.TN-19-X-5757, belonging to the petitioner herein, was driven on the wrong route and caused the death of the defacto complainant’s father. The said vehicle was driven by the second accused. FIR was registered against the driver of the vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 of IPC. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the petitioner was added as an accused on the allegation that he had permitted the driver to drive the vehicle on the wrong side. According to the prosecution, the petitioner, without exercising proper care and caution, abetted the offence by allowing his driver to operate the JCB on the wrong side of the road. Thereafter, the respondent-police filed the final report dated 12.02.2021 against the petitioner and another for the offences punishable under Sections 304(i) and 109 of IPC. The same was taken on file in P.R.C.No. 11 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur, Karur District. Thereafter, the case was committed to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur and numbered as S.C. No. 58 of 2022. 3. Mr. S. Gokul Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, being merely the owner of the JCB and not present at the scene, ought not to have been arrayed as an accused. No materials are available to attract Section 109 of IPC. He further submits that the petitioner was not involved in the accident caused by the second accused. Mere non-monitoring of the driver does not amount to any offence. He further submits that no FIR has been registered for the alleged first occurrence in December 2018, which is said to have taken place in a manner similar to the present incident. The reasons cited in the final report are unsustainable, and proceeding with trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, Mr. R. Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-police, submits that the investigating agency has collected sufficient materials. The reasons cited in the final report are unsustainable, and proceeding with trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the charge sheet is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, Mr. R. Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-police, submits that the investigating agency has collected sufficient materials. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of 35 witnesses. Based on the materials collected, it is contended that the petitioner abetted the offence. The petitioner had wilfully omitted to instruct his driver and allowed him to drive on the wrong side. Therefore, whether the petitioner abetted the offence is a matter to be determined only at the time of conclusion of trial. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the Criminal Original Petition. 5. Mr. V. Janakiramulu, the learned counsel for the second respondent, submits in the line of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent-police. 6. This Court has heard on both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. The investigation agency examined LW1 to LW35. The statements of the witnesses and all other materials would show that the petitioner was also involved in the crime. To substantiate the same, the statements of LW1, LW3 to LW5 are extracted hereunder:- 8. In view of the above statements, this Court is of the opinion that there was a dispute between the petitioner, who is the owner of the JCB, and the father of the deceased, with regard to the movement of the petitioner's vehicles on the wrong route. Therefore, there are some triable issues in this case. As pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the question as to whether the petitioner has abetted to cause the offence or not, can be decided only at the time of Trial. It is learnt that the Sessions Judge framed the charges against the petitioner and another under Sections 304 and 109 of IPC. The petitioner has not made out a case for quashing the case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash S.C.No.58 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, Karur District. 9. It is learnt that the Sessions Judge framed the charges against the petitioner and another under Sections 304 and 109 of IPC. The petitioner has not made out a case for quashing the case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash S.C.No.58 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, Karur District. 9. It is to be noted that the above view is recorded only for the purpose of deciding this petition for quashment of S.C. No. 58 of 2022 and shall not, in any manner, cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in defending the case during trial. 10. In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.