JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed against t I i order dated 20.5.2011 whereby charges have been framed against the present petitioner for the offences under Sections 498-A and 304-B, I.P.C. 2. The short facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed before the Police Station, Chhoti Sadri, where it has been stated that Bheru Kanwar @ Dadam Kanwar was married to present petitioner, who was reported to be died on 30.1.2005. It was further stated that mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased were demanding dowry and due to demand of dowry and torturing by mother-in-law and brother-in-law, Dadam Kanwar had died. It was also suspected that the poison has been administered to the deceased. On this information, F.I.R. No. 62/2005 has been registered and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against mother-in-law Dhan Kanwar and brother-in-law Vikram Singh on 6.6.2006. Thereafter on 10.10.2006, S.H.O. of Police Station, Chhoti Sadri moved an application before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhoti Sadri that he wants to further investigate the matter. The application was rejected by the trial Court but the present petitioner has been arrested and after investigation, an additional charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioner. 3. Heard teamed counsel for the parties. 4. The main contention of the present petitioner is that once a charge-sheet has been filed against the two accused-persons, further investigation, which was refused by the trial Court, should not have been done and additional charge-sheet which has been filed against the present petitioner is per se illegal. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. which reads as under : "173(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 or 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)." 6. A bare perusal of above provision goes to show that further investigation could be done under Section 173(8) and there is no legal requirement to have a permission from the concerned Court. Hence, the additional charge-sheet which has been filed is not, in any way, illegal and this objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, submitted that whichever evidence has been collected during first charge-sheet, no offence has been found to be made out against the present petitioner. Indra Singh, father of the deceased, Chatar Singh, uncle of the deceased and other witnesses have alleged nothing against the present petitioner and if there had been any allegation against the present petitioner at that time, charge-sheet must have been filed against, the present petitioner also which has not been filed at that time. 8. Looking at the above statements of Indra Singh, Chatar Singh, Sangram Singh, Goru Kanwar, mother of the deceased, it goes to show that there are no specific allegations against the present petitioner regarding demand of dowry. The allegations against the present petitioner are that he was a passive person and he never objected about the actions of his mother and brother. The witnesses have stated that the present petitioner has stated that he cannot say any thing to his mother and brother. In the course of further investigation, statements of Premi, Deep Kanwar, Kundan Kanwar have been recorded who are the neighbours of the present petitioner. They also had not specifically stated any thing against the present petitioner and, their statement have been taken after a long delay. The incident is of May, 2005, whereas these statements have been recorded in June, 2007. It is not the case of the prosecution that these witnesses are not available at the time of first charge-sheet. Witness Fateh Singh has not stated any thing against the present petitioner. 9. Hence looking at the totality of the evidence, there is no prima facie evidence against the present petitioner that he demanded dowry or in any way, harassed the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. Hence, the charge-sheet which has been filed against the petitioner is a gross abuse of process of Court and hence liable to be quashed and consequently the charges framed against the petitioner by the impugned order are liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the charge-sheet which has been filed against the petitioner is a gross abuse of process of Court and hence liable to be quashed and consequently the charges framed against the petitioner by the impugned order are liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. In view of above, this misc. petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20.5.2011 by which charges have been framed against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******