Tavera. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there is no clarity in regard to the vehicle involved in the accident. May be the vehicle either Quallis or Tavera, but it is to be noted that in appearance, both vehicles are one and the same. This is the hit and run case and somebody standing nearby at the scene of occurrence, noted down the number of the vehicle correctly and informed to the police. Therefore, when the registration number of the vehicle was correctly noted and mentioned in Accident Report and in hospital records, merely because the brand of the vehicle is different, the respondent police ought not to have filed the closure reports. All the aspects as regards the vehicle and the driver who drove the vehicle and the involvement of the petitioner, etc., will be probed and established only during the fullfledged trial. Further, in the present case, according to the petitioner, the car was driven by his driver, but the details of the driver have not been revealed in the statement of the petitioner recorded by the police. Therefore, this Court is of the view that at this stage all the above issues cannot be decided even before the trial and the learned Judicial Magistrate has rightly taken the complaint on record. Hence, this Court does not find any abuse of process of law in taking the complaint on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, who, in fact thoroughly examined all the aspects and taken the cognizance of the offence. In fact, the learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the closure reports filed by the first and second respondents on different dates. Since the learned Magistrate found prima facie material against the petitioner to proceed with the case, he has rightly taken the complaint on file. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit or substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
