IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.9119 of 2009 UTTIM SINGH & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 4 3.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners are accused in a case under Sections 364 and 302/34 of the Indian penal Code. A case was instituted by the petitioners numbered as Tajpur P.S. Case No. 26 of 2002 in which it is said that two criminals were running away with a looted motorcycle. On chase, the petitioners had opened fire which resulted in the death of one criminal. The father of the deceased person filed a protest stating therein that his son was arrested from a Cinema Hall at Hajipur. Enquiry was held by the C.I.D. in which the case found prima facie true against these petitioners on the ground that the case registered for the stolen motorcycle and the place of occurrence as described by the petitioners in the case instituted by them was at the distance of 25 to 30 kms. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in this case the District Police did not find the petitioners guilty of the said offence. Thereafter the father of the deceased moved the National Human Rights Commission and on the order of the Commission the enquiry was entrusted to C.I.D. The C.I.D. had submitted a final form in this case and thereafter the matter apparently was reinvestigated which has resulted in the order of cognizance. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the only question in this case is 2 whether the matter could have been reinvestigated inview of the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel relies on a case reported in (2008) 5 SCC 413 to submit that only further investigation can be made and the matter cannot be reinvestigated. Several questions have been raised in this quashing application however, these questions are all disputed facts and cannot be taken into account for quashing of the order of cognizance. The question whether the matter went for reinvestigation or fresh investigation in this case, perhaps may not arise in view of the fact that the entire matter was referred by the National Human Rights Commission and if at all this aspect can only be considered after looking into the entire case which can perhaps be done only at the stage of framing of charge or during the trial. As far as the order of taking cognizance is concerned, there is no illegality in the order impugned. This application is dismissed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)