IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.895 of 2009 PINKU DEVI Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.SECRE.& OR ----------- 3 28.7.2010 The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to make further investigation in Pakribarawan P.S.Case No.91 of 2005 dated 11.8.2005 for an offence registered under section 302 and other allied section of the Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. It would appear from perusal of the F.I.R. that the petitioner’s husband namely Ram Sagar Singh @ Sagar Singh has been named as one of the 15 accused in the instant case. The petitioner submits that the name of her husband, who has just retired as School teacher, has been falsely roped in the instant case which has occurred on account of rivalry of two gang with which the husband of the petitioner has no concern. The petitioner further submits that at the relevant date and time of the occurrence, her husband was not present. Moreover, except the family members of the deceased, no other witness have stated about the presence of the petitioner’s husband in the village at the relevant time or about the participation in the alleged occurrence, rather paragraphs 28, 29, 68, 72, 75, 86, 96, 170, 211, 248 of the main case diary as well as paragraphs 6, 7, 17, 29, 30 and 31 of the supplementary case diary points towards the innocence of the petitioner’s husband. The petitioner further submits that the 2 Superintendent of Police, Nawadah ignoring the directives of the Dy. S.P. directed for filing of the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner prior to the filing of the charge sheet filed an application for further investigation both before the D.I.G., Magadh Range as well as D.G. Patna, contained in Annexure-3 series, who in turn vide their memo no.9464 dated 8.12.2005 as well as memo no.1427 dated 24.9.2005 observed that they had written to Superintendent of Police, Nawadah to enquire into the matter and take steps in accordance with law. He further submits that even after filing of the charge sheet, the police has unfettered power to make further investigation under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rama Chaudhary Vs State of Bihar, reported in 2009(3) P.L.J.R.(SC) 45. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein in paragraph 7 it has been stated that after completion of investigation charge sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner’s husband and five other accused persons. It has been further stated that the petitioner’s husband is a named accused in the instant case and various witnesses namely Anil Kumar, Tripurari Singh, Anil Singh, Mahesh Singh, Bipin Kumar, Naresh Singh, Umesh Singh, Subhadra Devi, Savitri Devi and Ramanuj Singh have named the petitioner’s husband as an accused in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. 3 KHAN Learned State counsel submits that the instant case is one of the examples of gruesome murder in which five persons were killed. He submits that in course of investigation, it has come to light that the petitioner’s husband had actually participated in the occurrence. There is no dispute to the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rama Chaudhary (supra) wherein it has been held that even after filing of the charge sheet, the police in an appropriate case can make further investigation. In the instant case I find that various witnesses have named the petitioner as one of the accused in killing of five persons. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to issue an appropriate direction for further investigation. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.P.Singh,J)