By means of this petition un­der Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.1.2008, passed by learned J.M./Addl.Civil Judge (J.D.), Balrampur in case crime No. 160 of 2002 under Section 306, I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, Utraula, Balrampur in case No.492 of 2010 as well as order dated 14.12.2009, passed by Special Judge S.C. and S.T.Act in Criminal Revision No. 30 of 2008. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record of the case. 3. Notice on behalf of the opposite party has been accepted by the learned A.G.A. 4. lt is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Smt. Kushma Devi, who was wile of petitioner No.2 Jokhu alias Kheru, had died at the house of the applicants due to Cholera but her father Basudev on 24.3.2002, lodged a report against the petitioners to the effect that they used to treat Kushma Devi with cruelty as she had no child and thus the petitioners abetted the commission of suicide by Smt. Kushma Devi. 5. It is submitted that the report was false and nothing was found in the viscera of the deceased while it is said that deceased com­mitted suicide by consuming poison. That the Police without proper investigation submit­ted charge-sheet against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 300,1.P.C. whereupon the petitioners moved an application before the learned Magistrate for re-investigation under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. but said application was rejected and there­after revision was preferred that too was rejected by the learned Session Judge and since these orders were passed without application of mind and an ipso facto illegal, therefore, they should be set aside. 6. Learned AGA has opposed the petition by contending that Police after holding investigation have submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and admittedly the deceased was wife of petitioner Jokhu alias Kheru and had died at his house all of a sud­den otherwise than in normal circumstances.She died because of cholera., the burden lies on the petitioner to prove it at the trial and there was no necessity for further investigation in the matter when charge sheet was submitted by the Police on the ground that prima facie case of abetment of commission of suicide is made out against the petitioners. It is also submitted that accused has got no right to ask for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., when chargesheet has been submitted and the court has taken cognizance of the offence and as such by passing the impugned order, the learned court below did not commit any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and as such the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the parties. 8. It is settled law that when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the inquiry whether evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. This is the function of the trial Judge. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution in the grab of further investigation. When entire facts are incomplete and the evidence is yet to be produced before the trial court, finding regarding sufficiency of the material in support of the prosecution cannot be given. Admittedly, the deceased was wife of petitioner Jokhu alias Kheru, who died at his house under suspicious circumstances. In the investigation, statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the I.O and on the basis of the material available charge sheet was submitted which prima facie discloses commission of the cognizable offence for which charge sheet has been submitted. When after investigation, chargesheet has been submitted accused has got no right to ask for further investigation and to delay the trial. The provisions of Section 173 (8) merely enable the Police to further investigate, in case the Officer Incharge of the Police Station obtains further evidence oral or documentary, but it does not give right to accused to ask for further investigation as a matter of right The petitioners have also not come with clean hands. Copy of the statements recorded by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and copy of other documents collected by the I.O. during investigation of the case has also not been filed. In the circumstances there appears no sufficient ground to interfere in the impugned order, passed by the court below. The petitioners will have opportunity during trial to adduce evidence in his defence that deceased had not committed suicide and she died natural death. 9. In the circumstances there appears no sufficient ground to interfere in the impugned order, passed by the court below. The petitioners will have opportunity during trial to adduce evidence in his defence that deceased had not committed suicide and she died natural death. 9. In view of all what has been said above, impugned orders do no require interference. The petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. Petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.