IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.548 of 2007 ANJANI KUMAR CHAURASIA……………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Superintendent of Police, Buxar. 3. The Officer In Charge, Dumraon Police Station, District – Buxar ……… Respondents ----------- Advocate for petitioner :- Mr. Laxmi Nr. Das Advocate for State :- Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma A/C to AGG III Advocate for informant :- Narendra Kumar Tej Narayan Singh, Advocates. 4 18.02.2009 Heard. This application has been filed for a direction to the respondents for further investigation of Dumraon P.S. Case No. 194 of 2004 under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending in the court of A.D.J., FTC – III, Buxar in S.T. No. 209 of 2005 arising out of Dumraon P.S. Case No. 194 of 2004 under Section 498(A) , 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that police conducted the investigation in haste and only to deprive the petitioner of the benefit of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. filed final form under Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the petitioner is that the statements of many witnesses recorded vide paragraphs 17, 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 44, 57, 58, 59 and 60 will show that the deceased victim girl hanged herself after bolting the room from inside. He further submits that only the father of the girl alleged that she was done to death. He further submits that in view of such overwhelming evidence, final form, at the most, could have been submitted only - 2 - under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Further case of petitioner is that the aforesaid submissions would find support from Annexure 4 which is an enquiry report of Superintendent of Police, Buxar submitted on 26.10.2006 to C.J.M, Buxar pursuant to a report sought by Memo No. 1044 dated 19.10.2006. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in 2004(3) PLJR S.C. 287 as well as in case of Arun Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2006(1) PLJR page 606 as well as in case of Gupteshwar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2004(2) PLJR page 429. Learned counsel for the State and informant submits that the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Even an application for discharge was rejected by the trial court. Delay in trial cannot be a ground for disallowing further investigation if materials justify the same. In the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 13 has laid down that delay in concluding the trial cannot stand in the way of making further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., if the same would help the Court in arriving at the just decision. In the case of Arun Kumar (Supra), the learned Single Judge observed that investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. is permissible in the following circumstances:- (a) If subsequently fresh materials come to the knowledge of - 3 - the police (b) or if investigation was improperly collected (c) or that investigations was wrongly conducted. In case of Gupteshwar Prasad (Supra) this court observed that if the power of investigation had been exercised by the police in a malafide manner, this Court can direct further investigation. Furthermore submission of charge sheet can not be a ground for disallowing further investigation. I find from the materials on record that the police has recorded the statement of witnesses and they have stated that the victim committed suicide. Further, the Magistrate took cognizance of offence under Section 304(B) and a petition for discharging the accused of charge under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code was rejected. This court does not find that the petitioner has made out any case for directing further investigation as no further concrete material has come before the police except for what has already been collected in course of investigation. The petitioner in support of his contention is relying upon suicidal angle of the case, in respect of which the police has also already collected materials. It will be always open to the petitioner to put fourth his claim in course of trial that the evidence collected do not make out a case under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, but one under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. As both the offences punishable under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are triable by the court of Sessions, no prejudice will be caused - 4 - to the petitioner as he can always take plea that no case under Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code is made out. As a result, this application fails. Kundan (S. P. Singh, J.)