IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42804 of 2009 VIJAY KUMAR . Versus STATE OF BIHAR . ----------- 2/ 19/03/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for the informant who has appeared suo motu. The petitioner questions his prosecution in Silao P.S. Case No.195/02 under Sections- 302 and 120B/34 of Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner is one of the four named accused. Whether he is assailant or not, is hardly relevant so long as he is alleged to be present at the time of occurrence when Sections-120B/34 of Indian Penal Code are also charged. The next submission that on a partial charge-sheet cognizance was taken against him while investigation remained pending with regard to others when the police in the subsequent charge-sheet has come out with an entirely new story, unconnected with the partial charge-sheet given with regard to the petitioner, does not impress to warrant interference under Section-482 Cr.P.C. The jurisdiction for interference with a trial at the very inception in exercise of powers under 2 Section-482 Cr.P.C. is extremely narrow and limited and the scrutiny shall become closer when the allegations are of a nature as serious as Section-302 of Indian Penal Code, a charge sheet having been submitted against the petitioner. Suffice it to say that once investigation with regard to the petitioner was concluded and charge-sheet submitted against him even while it may have remained pending against others, no fresh investigation with regard to him could have been done except with the leave of the Court. In view of the charge-sheet having been submitted, cognizance taken, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, there is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)