1. Puzzling death of one Shabeena Hassan D/O Ghulam Hassan Lone R/O Lalipora Anantnag, adopted daughter of Abdul Gani Allai R/O Hussanpora Bijbehara, gave anxious moments to both police and her relatives. 2. On 2nd March, 2011 at 18.11 hours, information was received by Police Station Bijbehara to the effect that said Shabeena Hassan, in an unconscious state of mind, is lying on the bank of Nallah Vashu, she was alleged to have consumed some poisonous substance, same information led to the registration of the case as FIR No.28/2011P/S Bijbehara for commission of offence punishable under Section 309 RFC. She was shifted to Sub District Hospital, Bijbehara where she was declared as "brought dead". "Sahil nay mujay mara, os kay naam zindagi shuru kithi, osi per khatam, 9906617858 S+S" were the words scribed with a ball pen on her left palm. Froth like substance was found in the mouth and nose of the deceased. One Ghulam Mohammad Ganai S/o Abdul Ahad Ganai R/o Hassanpora Taweela had deposed before the Police that he was present on spot, from the pocket of the pheran, a half-filled bottle was recovered. The sticker over the bottle was containing the following words "Fumigan Dichlorvos 76% ED-GDVP insecticide red in colour". It is on this basis initially offence of 309 RPC was shown to have been committed. Viscera was sent to FSL, Srinagar for expert opinion, report of FSL would reveal that no poison was detected, then again sample was sent to CFSL, Chandigarh who opined that no poison was detected in the visceral organs of the deceased, therefore, death by poison was ruled out. 3. During the course of investigation when it was being taken as a case of suicide, the father of the deceased filed the instant petition projecting therein that the death of Shabeena Hassan is not suicidal but homicidal. In the petition following prayer has been made:- "(a) Mandamus commanding the respondent State of Jammu and Kashmir through respondent No.1 to transfer and handover the investigation of F.I.R No.28/2011 in Police Station, Bijbehara to C.B.I. Or Mandamus thereby commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to constitute a special investigation team (SIT) for investigation of F.I.R. No.28/2011 in Police Station, Bijbehara and direct the SIT to investigate the F.I.R without any influence of respondents 4 to 8 and to the exclusion of respondent No.4 to 8". 4. 4. During pendency of writ petition, two status reports have been filed wherein position of the case is clearly indicated i.e. "blunt trauma leading to intra cranial haemorrhage leading to cardio-respiratory arrest and then to death". As per status report, during investigation, evidence has been collected to the effect that Shabeena (deceased) had gone to the house of accused Shameem Ahmad Reshi, who, while spotting her, felt ashamed and slapped her, due to which she fell down and her head struck with the iron grill of the Verandaso got injured, she was offered a glass of water by the mother of the accused and after that she was taken to her home with the assurance that her marriage with Shamim will be sorted out after some days. The investigating officer concluded that the accused Shamim Ahmad has committed murder punishable under Section 302 RPC but while the material collected was send for examination to Chief Prosecuting Officer for legal opinion, heopined that offence under Section 304 RFC is made out. Based on such legal opinion, charge sheet(challan) has been presented. Accused has been put to trial i.e. charge against the accused has been framed for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 RFC. 5. The writ petition, in view of afore-stated developments, no more survives for any further consideration because the petitioner wanted handing over of the investigation to CBI or in alternative for constitution of Special Investigation Team (SIT). Now investigation has been completed, charge sheet(challan) has been presented, charge has been framed against the accused. It was open for the complainant to lodge protest before the Magistrate against the conclusions drawn by the investigating agency and thereafter it was open for the complainant to challenge the order pursuant to which charge has been framed by trial court for commission of offence under Section 304 RFC. 6. It is on examination of the record as collected during the course of investigation, trial court has to frame opinion as to which offence is prima facie committed and for the commission of the same accused is put to trial. In the instant case, the trial court has passed the order where-under charge has been framed against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 RFC, as is clearly stated in the reply filed by the respondents. 7. In the instant case, the trial court has passed the order where-under charge has been framed against the accused for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 RFC, as is clearly stated in the reply filed by the respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to project that by filing the charge sheet, on conclusion of the investigation, power of the Court is not trammeled, Court still has power to interfere so as to avoid miscarriage of justice. In support of the contention, relied on the judgment State of Punjab v. Central Bureau of Investigation & ors. reported in AIR 2011 SC 2962 . In the reported judgment, after conclusion of the investigation charge sheet (challan) was presented, it has been held that the Court while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, which correspond to Section 561-A of the State Code of Criminal Procedure, fresh investigation or re-investigation can be ordered so as to secure ends of justice. In the reported case, investigation was being monitored by the High Court. In the instant case, investigation had already begun and it is during investigation, writ petition came to be filed seeking above two reliefs which have not been granted simply for the reason that status report has been called and in view of the status report filed, the investigation has been concluded and charge sheet has been presented and subsequently charge has been framed by the trial court while exercise powers under Section 268/269 which corresponds to Section 227 and 228 of the Central Code, which order has not been challenged. 8. From the reported judgment para 8 is relevant to be quoted: "8. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for the petitioner (State of Punjab) submitted that the High Court had failed to appreciate that on 01.06.2007 charge sheet had already been filed against nine accused persons after investigation into FIR No. 82 of Police Station City-I, Moga, and, therefore, no direction could be given to the CBI to conduct the investigation into the case. He cited the observations of this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India [ (1998) 1 SCC 226 : ( AIR 1998 SC 889 :1998 AIR SCW 645)] that the task of the monitoring Court would end the moment charge sheet was filed in respect of a particular investigation and thereafter the ordinary procedure of law would then take over. He submitted that after the charge sheet is filed, the Court has powers under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. to direct further investigation by the police, but the Court has no power to direct a fresh investigation or reinvestigation into the case by the police. He submitted that the High Court, therefore, could not have directed the CBI to start a fresh investigation or reinvestigation of the case after the police had filed charge sheet under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. In support of this submission, he cited the decision of this Court in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [ (2009) 6 SCC 332 : (AIR 2009 SC(Supp) 1658 : 2009 AIR SCW 3780)] in which this Court made a distinction between further investigation and reinvestigation and held that under sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., the Court can grant permission for further investigation and not for reinvestigation". 9. Every case has to be considered in the background of its peculiar facts and circumstances. Facts and circumstances of the instant case are altogether different, firstly investigation was not monitored by the High Court, secondly investigation of the case has been concluded on conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet has been presented. Initially puzzling position of death of the deceased, her position of going to the house of the accused and then assurance to her that she will be married to accused, stand on a different footing. Furthermore, the charge has been framed against the accused by the trial court, trial is in progress, at this stage no element of miscarriage of justice is discernible. 10. Viewed thus, this writ petition, for the stated reasons, does not survive for any further consideration, shall stand accordingly disposed of along with connected CMP.