U. S. TRIPATHI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. has been preferred for quashing the charge sheet and proceeding against the applicants in Criminal Case No. 6148 of 1998, (State v. Mujahid and others) under Sec. 302 I. P. C. , P. S. Kotwali Aonla, District Bareilly arising out of crime No. 238 of 1988 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial magistrate, Bareilly and for direction that further investigation under Sec. 173 (8) Cr. P. C. be made by the C. B. C. I. D. ( 2 ) ONE Smt. Dilawari Begum lodged an F. I. R. on 29-4-1998 against the applicants and one Safiullah under Sec. 302 I. P. C. alleging that on the evening of said date i. e. 24-9-1998 at about 8p. M. her husband Isar Ahmad was coming to his house from shop on which he was working. When he reached near the house of Ajay, the applicants and saffiullah, who were present there from before surrounded him. On hearing shrieks of her husband, the persons of the Mohalla and she also reached on the spot and observed that Saffiullah and Mujahid Hussain, applicant No. 2 had caught her husband hold and Tajjamull Hussain, applicant No. 1 fired pistol shots upon him, due to which he fell down and died. Quamar Miyan and several other persons had observed the occurrence in the light of electricity. Her husband had dispute with the applicants and Saffiullah regarding purchase of land and he was murdered on account of above enmity. On the basis of above report a case at crime No. 139 of 1998 under Sec. 302 I. P. C. was registered against the applicants and Safiullah. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the applicant and Safiullah under Sec. 302 I. P. C. On the submission of charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly summoned the applicants and Safiullah in the said case. The applicants then filed this petition for quashing the charge sheet and re-investigation by C. B. C. I. D. ( 3 ) INITIALLY a Criminal Writ Petition No. 5639 of 1998 was filed. The above petition was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 7-12-1998 holding that the petition was disposed of with only observation that petitioners may either withdraw the petition for pressing before the Bench hearing application under Sec. 482 Cr. The above petition was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 7-12-1998 holding that the petition was disposed of with only observation that petitioners may either withdraw the petition for pressing before the Bench hearing application under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. or to convert the petition into a petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. After said order, the applicants converted the above petition into a petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) HEARD Sri Tejpal, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and perused the record. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No. 1 is a local leader of Samajwadi Party and he was being harassed by local M. P. belonging to B. J. P. and M. L. A. and Chairman of the Municipality, who are also from the B. J. P. The petitioners have no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. The deceased was a criminal and was involved in several criminal cases. From punchayatnama it is revealed that the punches had not signed it. No statement of punches have been recorded by the I. O. The medical report shows that shot was fired from a great distance. Quamar Miyan, the alleged eye witness had filed affidavit deposing that he had not seen the occurrence. According to affidavit of Qumar Miyan and other witnesses there was no electricity from 6 O Clock on the spot and report was prepared on the dictation of the I. O. Haji Ghani, Mohd. Daud Dullah Hussazin. Mohd. Rafiq, Mohd. Anis, Mujuisull Hasan, Hidayat Khan and Mohd. Yaseen have sworn the affidavits showing the alibi of the petitioners. The place of occurrence is far away, about half Kilometer, from the house of deceased and Dilawari Begum could not be present there. The case appears to be a hit and run case. Smt. Dilawari Begum, the informant had given statement on oath before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly in case No. 5345 of 1998 that she had not seen the petitioners committing murder of her husband. ( 6 ) SMT. Dilawari Begum as well as the I. O. of the case have filed counter-affidavits. In her counter-affidavit Smt. Dilawari Begum had denied the allegations made in the affidavit of applicant. ( 6 ) SMT. Dilawari Begum as well as the I. O. of the case have filed counter-affidavits. In her counter-affidavit Smt. Dilawari Begum had denied the allegations made in the affidavit of applicant. She, further, deposed that she had never stated that F. I. R. was forged and that she had not given any statement before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly exonerating the applicants. The place of occurrence is only at a distance of 140 paces from her house. She also denied to have given any affidavit in favour of applicants. ( 7 ) THE above questions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants relating to non commission of offence by them are factual and can only be determined by the Trial Court at appropriate stage. ( 8 ) THE question of alibi of applicants can also not be decided in this proceeding as it requires evidence and can only be decided on the basis of evidence. The truthfulness of the allegations and the establishment of the guilt can only take place when the trial proceeds. There is no justification for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. in this regard. Moreover, the facts alleged in the affidavit has been denied in counter-affidavit. Which aspect is correct, can be decided by the Trial Court. Therefore, on the above ground, the charge sheet, proceeding and summoning order of the applicant can not be quashed in the proceeding under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the investigation in the case was not fair and it was done under influence of local politicians and therefore, order of fresh investigation be made under Sec. 173 (8) Cr. P. C. Section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. says that nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-sec. (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate. ( 10 ) RELIANCE was also placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Pepsi Food Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate 1998 Cr. L. J. 1 : (1997 All. LJ 2406) K. Chandrashekhar v. State of Kerala (1998)3 J. T. S. C. 612 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2001 ) and famous Gajraula Nuns rape case (1992)1 SCC, 397. L. J. 1 : (1997 All. LJ 2406) K. Chandrashekhar v. State of Kerala (1998)3 J. T. S. C. 612 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2001 ) and famous Gajraula Nuns rape case (1992)1 SCC, 397. ( 11 ) I have gone through the above case laws as well as the grounds on which further investigation is sought. In the case of K. Chandrasekhar (supra) the Government of Kerala have consented to the C. B. I. to investigate in the matter. Subsequently, the Government of Kerala withdrew notification, and attempted reinvestigation into the matter, which was later termed as further investigation. It was held that the State Government had no power to file a complaint under Indian Officials Secret Act,1923 and notification withdrawing its consent to enable the State Government to investigate was patently invalid. There is nothing in the judgement to suggest that further investigation could not be directed by a Court. In Gajraula Nuns case (supra) ( 1992 (1) SCC 397 ), the Court on a Public Interest Litigation directed investigation by the C. B. I. to do justice between the parties in a given situation and to instil confidence in the public mind, as it was suggested that in the charge sheet wrong persons were nominated as accused instead of real culprits. The case law also indicates that the power of further investigation may be exercised by the Court. ( 12 ) IT is clear that for ordering fresh investigation there must be some material on record. The grounds on which further investigation has been sought, as enumerated above relates to facts of case. In her counter-affidavit Smt. Dilawari Begum, informant and wife of the deceased has clearly set up a motive against the applicants. The F. I. R. also indicates motive. There is also eye witness account of the case. The contention of the applicant that eye witness and others have filed affidavit has also been controverted. Whether the applicants have committed the offence complained of or not is to be decided by the Trial Court. The charge sheet had already been submitted and committal proceeding had started. The truthfulness of the case of the prosecution shall be judged by the Trial Court. The grounds shown above are not sufficient for this Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. for ordering re-investigation. The charge sheet had already been submitted and committal proceeding had started. The truthfulness of the case of the prosecution shall be judged by the Trial Court. The grounds shown above are not sufficient for this Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. for ordering re-investigation. ( 13 ) MOREOVER, assuming that the powers under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. could be exercised in respect of further investigation, the very prayer is untenable in the light of the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of C. B. I. v. Rajesh Ghandhi, 1997 Cri LJ 63 : ( AIR 1997 SC 93 ). The above case law indicates that the Supreme Court had clearly ruled that the accused could not have a say in the matter of agency of investigation. He cannot choose the agency, which would investigate into the offence with which he is charged. The Supreme Court ruled that the decision to investigate or the decision on the agency, which should investigate the offence did not attract principle of natural justice. In view of above clear opinion of the Supreme Court on the right of the accused to choose the agency of investigation, the prayer for re-investigation cannot be entertained under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. The above principle has also been relied on by this Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Tyagi v. State (1998)37 All. Cri C 799. ( 14 ) IN these circumstances, the facts and circumstances of the case and prayer and the grounds for reinvestigation are not sufficient to make out a case for interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 482cr. P. C. for quashing the charge sheet or ordering reinvestigation. ( 15 ) THEREFORE, I find no force in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The petition having no force is, accordingly, dismissed. ( 16 ) STAY order dated 16-12-1998 is vacated. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly within a week. Petition dismissed.