IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.19895 of 2008 1. MD.ALI MUSA S/O HAJI SHARFUDDIN 2. MD. JUNAID ALI @ MD. JUNIB ALI S/O MD. ALI MOOSA BOTH R/O VILLAGE BAZIDPUR, P.S.- KINJAR, DISTRICT- ARWAL ………….Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BALIRAM YADAV S/O YADUNANDAN YADAV R/O VILLAGE MISHRI BIGHA, P.S. PARAS BIGHA DISTRICT- JEHANABAD …………..Opposite Parties ----------- 3. 08.04.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jehanabad in Complaint/ Protest Petition No. 16/2007 arising out of Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 154/2006, by which he has taken cognizance under Section 279, 337, 338, 304-A of I.P.C. and issued summons to the petitioners. Initially a police case was instituted for the accident which had occurred on 4.7.2006 on account of which one Ravindra Yadav lost his life. The accident had occurred on account of collision between a tractor and a motor cycle. After investigation final report was submitted in the matter but a protest petition was filed on behalf of the informant stating therein that 2 the police had gone in favour of the accused persons and, therefore, final report had been submitted. In the protest petition, even though the petitioners were named as the owner of the tractor B.R.-25-5459 tractor 2522, there was no specific overt act alleged against them nor is there any allegation that the petitioners were driving the said tractor. The complainant examined one witness on his behalf during inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. who also merely stated that the petitioners were owners of the tractor and had given the vehicle to the co-accused to drive even though he was not competent to do so. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in light the paucity of material against the petitioners, they should not be further proceeded against. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is an allegation that one of the witnesses stated that the petitioners were owners and, therefore, their liability could not be condoned. Since the offence under Section 304-A does not make out a case for vicarious liability, I am 3 inclined to allow this application and set aside the order dated 11.12.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jehanabad in Complaint/ Protest Petition No. 16/2007 arising out of Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 154/2006 so far as it relates to the petitioners only. However, the exoneration of the petitioners in the present criminal case would not entitle them to be exonerated from any civil liability, if they are fastened with the same. Fahad. ( Anjana Prakash, J.)