C.J.’S Court (Old Block) Criminal Misc. Petition No.777 of 2001. (Old No.5565 of 2000) Central Bureau of Investigation, SCB-II, Block-3, CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi -Applicant. Versus Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardwar, -Opposite parties. Hon’ble Irshad Hussain, J. This Criminal petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) has been preferred against the order dated 08.05.2000 passed by C.J.M., Hardwar in case crime no.964 of 1999, whereby application seeking permission for further investigation under sub-section (8) of section 173 of the Code was rejected. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that case crime no. 964 of 2000 was registered on the report of Sri R.B.S. Yadav, Squadron Leader alleging that his daughter Miss Sunita Yadav, a student of Gurukul Kangri Ayurvedic College, Hardwar was raped in the first week of May 1999 when she visited the house of her teacher J.P.S.Agarwal. Miss Sunita in the first week of May 1999 went to her house in Delhi where she narrated the story to her parents. On account of the unfortunate incident, she used to remain mentally disturbed and committed suicide at 6:00 A.M. on 19.08.1999. The F.I.R. was lodged with the averments that the girl committed suicide due to the commission of the rape. A case was registered under section 376/328/506/306,120-B of Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Kotwali Nagar, district Hardwar against J.P.S. Agarwal and his wife. The police investigated the matter and submitted charge- sheet against both the accused on 11.10.1999. C.J.M., Hardwar committed both these accused to sessions and in the session trial no.103 of 2000, the charges were framed against the accused on 29.04.2000 and till now seven witnesses including all the witnesses of fact have been examined by the prosecution. Perusal of the record indicates that on 23.10.1999, Government of U.P. issued a notification conveying its consent for transfer of the investigation of the case to C.B.I. and in pursuance thereof, the Government of India issued the notification for transfer of the investigation to C.B.I. In view of it, an application dated 06.01.2000 was moved by the C.B.I., Hardwar before the C.J.M. purported to be under section 173(8) of the Code for further investigation of the case. After hearing the parties, the application was rejected by the C.J.M. per order dated 07.01.2000 on the ground that the prayer of the application that the charge-sheet submitted in the above case, be kept in abeyance, cannot be legally granted. After this order, another application dated 16.03.2000 was preferred by the C.B.I. for formal permission to further investigate the case and this application was also dismissed on merit per order dated 08.05.2000, which has been challenged by the instant petition. The application was rejected mainly on the ground that there was no justification for the C.B.I. to further investigate the case because it has nowhere been pointed out that some new evidence throwing light on the incident in question ah surfaced necessitating further investigation of the case. Learned counsel for the applicant and for opposite parties 2 and 3 were heard at length. At the out-set it need to be mentioned that in the petition also not even slightest indication of any new evidence which may have surfaced necessitating the issuance of notification to hand over investigation to C.B.I. has been given and merely a vague assertion in paragraph no. 11 of the affidavit has been made to assert that if request of the C.B.I. for further investigation is not accepted vital aspects of the case will be left untouched and unexplored. It is also of significance that the seven witnesses in the session trial have been examined before the arguments in this petition were advanced and still no attempt was made from the side of the petitioner to point out from the evidence of the complaint or other witnesses of the fact that probing in the investigation about the involvement of persons other than the two accused who have been charge-sheeted, has not been done by the investigating officer. No doubt, it is well settled, as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K. Chandrashekhar Versus State of Kerala and others and connected matters ( 1998 ) 5, SCC-243) that even after submission of report under sub-section (2) of section 173 of the Code on completion of the investigation the police has a right of further investigation under sub- section (8) of the said section, but it does not empower the police to reinvestigate the case or start fresh investigation in the matter. As submitted on behalf of the opposite parties nos.2 and 3 as also opined above, there appears to be no justification for further investigation of the case particularly in view of the fact when seven witnesses including all the witnesses of fact have been examined and nothing had been pointed about any new evidence coming to the light in relation to the incident in question. The law does not permit reinvestigation or fresh investigation after the charge-sheet had been submitted on completion of the investigation and from the perusal of the notifications of the Government of U.P. dated 23.10.1999 (Annexure 1-B) and notification of the Government of India dated 01.11.1999 (Annexure-2) to the petition, as submitted, the inference which can be drawn is that the purpose of the application for permission of the C.J.M. was either to make fresh investigation or to reinvestigate the crime in question. Law does not permit this, it can again be reiterated that these notifications as well as application in question dated 16.03.2000 which was rejected by the impugned order admit of only one inference that there was no justification in the peculiar facts of the case to seek permission for further investigation of the case. In view of the above the learned Magistrate was fully justified in dismissing the application and no interference in the impugned order dated 08.05.2000 is warranted. The petition is hereby dismissed. (Irshad Hussain, J.) May 15,2002.