JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This writ application has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for directing reinvestigation of the Criminal case which is subject matter of G. Ft. Case No. 716 of 2000 pending in the court of the S.D.J.M., Puri wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused for commission of offences under Sections 376/34 I..P.C. by another agency preferably by the C.B.I. 2. The brief facts leading to this writ petition are that an F.I.R. was lodged by one Maria Schmidova alias Mangala Devi alleging therein that she and her daughter were sexually abused by the petitioner. According to petitioner there was no medical evidence to show that there was any proof of rape by the petitioner on the daughter of Maria and also there was no injury detected on the private part of the victim. According to the petitioner the medical evidence clearly disproves either the case of attempted rape or actual rape. It is the fact that the investigating agency in the meantime has submitted a charge sheet and in pursuance of the direction of this court on 27.6.2001 the Sessions Judge, Puri submitted a report wherein it is stated that after submission of the charge sheet in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Puri processes have been directed to be issued for appearance of the accused persons awaiting commitment of the case to the court of session, that means charge sheet has already been filed. 3. Apart from the petitioner's claim that no material as against him was available with the prosecution to fasten him with offence u/s 376 I.P.C., it is further submitted that the petitioner is ill and now treated as an indoor patient in Mental Institute of S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital Cuttack. The medical report which was called for by the court from the S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital reveals that the petitioner is suffering from Schizoafrective psychiatric disorder and is receiving regular treatment from 1.5.2001 being admitted as an indoor patient. The report so filed indicates that he can be considered for domicilliary treatment if family support is available. The petitioner in this writ application has also prayed for bail as well as filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 6008 of 2001 for bail, which is heard along with this writ application. 4. The report so filed indicates that he can be considered for domicilliary treatment if family support is available. The petitioner in this writ application has also prayed for bail as well as filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 6008 of 2001 for bail, which is heard along with this writ application. 4. An affidavit has been filed being sworn to by one Upendra Nath Sahoo, who is the investigating officer of Puri Sea Beach Police Station relating to Puri Sea Beach P.S. Case No. 75 of 2001 in which the petitioner was implicated as an accused. It appears therefrom that the petitioner is facing serious charges relating to various drug offences alleged to have been committed by him in USA, and the police authorities have received a letter from the Asst. Director C.B.I. (Interpol) and a copy of the letter received by C.B.I. (Interpol) from US Embassy, copies of those letters are annexed to the counter as Annexures A/1 and B/1, which has been strongly disputed by the petitioner. The further case of the prosecution is that as charge sheet was filed against the petitioner, and he approached this Court twice with the prayer for bail, which were rejected, another application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3025 of 2001 was filed which was also dismissed. 5. In course of hearing a memo was filed by the petitioner praying therein that the petitioner may be allowed to stay in the house of one S. N. Mohanty, Retired Deputy Secretary, Housing and Urban Department, Govt. of Orissa at Bhubaneswar and Smt. Renuka Mohapatra, wife of Sri S. Mohapatra, Stoney Road, Cuttack, as they have agreed to stand as the sureties for him. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this will help the petitioner in getting domicialliary treatment as well as support from his family member under the strict vigilance of the police authorities. 6. This is a case, where a prayer is made for reinvestigation of the case in which the charge-sheet has already been filed. (Reinvestigation of the case is within the scope and ambit of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.) Sub-Section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. speaks as follows: " 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. 6. This is a case, where a prayer is made for reinvestigation of the case in which the charge-sheet has already been filed. (Reinvestigation of the case is within the scope and ambit of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.) Sub-Section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. speaks as follows: " 173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. (8) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report of reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub-sections(2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-section (2)" The provision of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. can be pressed into service if further evidence is discovered after filing final charge-sheet or police report on completion of the investigation. It cannot be utilised as an aid for collecting further evidence. That apart, power under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 is totally within the domain of the investigating agency for which is any material is discovered by the investigating agency, they can very well take the aid of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for the reasons stated above this Court is not inclined to pass any direction in this regard. That apart, there is no cogent ground to issue a direction of reinvestigation of the case by another agency namely C.B.I. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for allowing the petitioner to stay in a rented house at Bhubaneswar and get his treatment cannot be permitted in a proceeding under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India as the criminal proceeding is in progress and at the verge of commitment. That apart, when this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 101 of 2001 has already rejected the prayer for bail, I am not inclined to allow the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed and the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail on the ground taken in this writ application before the trial court. Case No. 101 of 2001 has already rejected the prayer for bail, I am not inclined to allow the aforesaid prayer of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed and the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail on the ground taken in this writ application before the trial court. In that event the trial court shall take a fresh look at the later development and pass necessary orders. 8. Writ application dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed