IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.818 of 2007 SAMUNDRI DEVI, Wife of Late Kashi Nath Mahto, Resident of Village- Maniya, P.S. Nawanagar (Sonbarsa), District- Buxar. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Superintendent of Police, Buxar. 3. Kunwar Singh 4. Arun Singh Both sons of late Chandra Singh Yadav. 5. Kashi Nath Singh, son of Khedan Singh Serial nos. 3 to 5 are resident of village Maniya, P.S. Nawanagar (Sonbarsa), District- Buxar. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 10/ 02.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the instant application, the petitioner prays for making further investigation in Nawanagar P.S. case no. 105 of 2001 and submission of charge-sheet against Kunwar Singh, Arun Singh and Kanshi Nath Singh, who have been arrayed as respondent nos. 3 to 5 in the application, for murder of her daughter Parwati Kumari, 15 years old girl. The petitioner submits that on 29.11.2001, two persons were killed in the same village, one was Parwati Kumari, the daughter of the petitioner and another was Police Yadav, uncle-in-law of one Hiramoti Devi. In respect of the aforesaid occurrence, one F.I.R. was lodged on statement of Hiramoti Devi, wife of Rakesh Singh, on 29.11.2001 at 3.00 P.M. at the house of late Police Yadav. She stated that 11 persons including respondent nos. 3 to 5, namely, Kunwar Singh, Arun Singh and Kanshi Nath Singh, entered her house and started firing upon Police Yadav, on account of which he died. She - 2 - further stated that soon thereafter this petitioner, Samundri Devi wife of late Kashinath Mahto, came to her house and stated that all the aforesaid persons have also killed her 15 years old daughter, near the house of Shiv Shankar Yadav. The informant further stated that she subsequently, also learnt that one Prayag Dhobi also sustained injury on his head. The police in course of investigation recorded statement of the petitioner in paragraph 11 of the case diary. This petitioner in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that all the 11 accused persons have killed her daughter. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against other accused persons and did not send respondent nos. 3 to 5 for trial, finding that they were not present at the place of occurrence on the relevant date and time of occurrence. Charge-sheet has been submitted on 10.11.2004 and cognizance was taken against remaining seven accused persons on 22.08.2005 and charges were also framed against them. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has neither challenged the charge-sheet, nor the order taking cognizance, nor framing of charge against respondent nos. 3 to 5. He further submits that petitioner has not filed any protest-cum-complaint petition for non-submission of charge-sheet against respondent nos. 3 to 5. He further submits that Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. does not prohibit the power of the police to make further investigation, even after submission of report under Section 173 (2). The police has stated that after complete and thorough investigation, report was submitted. In - 3 - such circumstances, I do not find that petitioner has made out any case for further investigation. In the instant case, the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet against seven accused persons and final report in favour of respondent nos. 3 to 5. I further find that the petitioner has not brought any material on record or has made out any case for further investigation. The petitioner next submits that she was summoned as a witness in course of trial. In the mean time, the trial concluded and judgment was delivered on 04.05.2007. After delivery of judgment, petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed for summoning respondent nos. 3 to 5 to face trial by the petitioner. In the petition, it has been stated that one sent up accused Ram Bhajju Singh died, and as such prayer has been made for summoning only three accused persons to face trial under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submits that no order was passed on the aforesaid petition filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. In my view, the learned trial court rightly did not pass any order on the aforesaid petition, as order on the petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can only be passed in course of enquiry into and / or trial into offence. Once the trial is over, the jurisdiction of the trial court to pass order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. ceases. The instant petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for further investigation has been filed after - 4 - conclusion of trial, as such, has prayed for further investigation in this case. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the application, accordingly, this application is dismissed. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)