IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.93 of 2010 JAWAHAR LAL MAHTO SON OF LATE CHUMAN LAL MAHTO RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAINI NONIYA DIH SOUTH TOLA POLICE STATION, CHAPRA, MUFFASIL DISTRICT-SARAN. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SARAN DISTRICT SARAN. 4. THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER, CHAPRA MUFASSIL, POLICE- STATION DISTRICT-SARAN. 5. THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, CHAPRA MUFFASIL POLICE STATION DISTRICT SARAN. 6. DILIP MAHTO SON OF LATE BISHUNDEO MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAINI NONIYA DIN, SOUTH TOLA, POLICE- STATION CHAPRA MUFFASIL, DISTRICT-SARAN. ----------- 07. 02.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The grievance of the petitioner is that with respect to Chapra Mufassil P.S. Case No. 128 of 2008 for the alleged offence under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that police after investigation has submitted charge sheet against the accused Dilip Mahto. However, against the other accused persons no police report has been submitted despite representations. Learned counsel appearing for the State, on the other hand submits, in the light of the submissions made in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit that after submitting the charge-sheet against the accused Dilip Mahto even after making several efforts police was clue less about them and as such the investigation had to be closed against them. Considering the submissions of the parties and the respective pleadings, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter however, it goes without saying that police is not precluded from making further investigation in terms of section 173 (8) of the code of criminal procedure. The writ petition stands disposed of. Devendra/ ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)