ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed seeking for reinvestigation in Crime No. 26 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police. 2. It is seen from the records that the FIR was registered initially under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, it was altered for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC. The final report was also filed before the concerned Court and the Court below has framed charges against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC. The trial also commenced and the witnesses on the side of the prosecution have also been examined. 3. The petitioner who is the defacto complainant has filed the present petition seeking for reinvestigation on the ground that the findings in the postmortem report clearly establishes that the deceased was strangulated which resulted in her death. However, the postmortem Doctor has given a final opinion to the effect that the death occurred of Asphyxia due to hanging. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this final opinion is completely wrong and the very findings in the postmortem report read along with Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, clearly shows that the death has happened due to strangulation. 4. The learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondent submitted that the Court below has applied its mind and framed charges for the offences under Sections 498(A) and 306 of IPC and the postmortem Doctor has also been examined. The learned counsel further submitted that the findings in the postmortem report and the opinion given by the Doctor also confirms the fact that the death had occurred only due to hanging. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent police submitted that the reinvestigation cannot be ordered in this case, since the investigation has been conducted in a proper manner and the Court below can always come to a conclusion with regard to the cause of death, based on the materials that have been collected in the course of investigation. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials placed on record. 7. The crucial issue that has been focused in the present petition is as to whether the deceased died due to hanging or due to strangulation. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials placed on record. 7. The crucial issue that has been focused in the present petition is as to whether the deceased died due to hanging or due to strangulation. The learned counsel for the petitioner based on the postmortem certificate and the opinion of the Doctor read along with Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology submits that the death had occurred due to strangulation. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd and 4th respondent submitted that the death had occurred only due to hanging. 8. This issue that has been focused in the present petition, in the considered view of this Court, does not require reinvestigation by the respondent police. A conclusion has to be arrived by the Court below only based on the materials that are available on record. 9. The earlier judicial pronouncements were consistently following the principle that, it is only the Court which has the power to alter or add new charges under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. and neither the prosecution nor the person interested will have any right to file a petition to alter or add charges. As a march of law, for the first time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised the right of the victim to file a petition under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. by bringing to the notice of the Court, certain materials based on which the charges can be altered/added. The Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized this right in the case of Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha vs. State of Haryana and Another, AIR 2016 SC 1197 : (2016) 6 SCC 105 : LNIND 2016 SC 106 : (2016) 2 MLJ (Crl) 294. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even though it is the exclusive domain of the Court to alter or add any charges, it is always open to the prosecution or the victim to pin point those materials before the Court to enable the Court to take a decision under Section 216 of Cr.P.C. 10. The right of the victim/affected party to participate in the proceedings is recognised under Section 301 and 302 of Cr.P.C. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expanded the scope of participation of the victim in the Court proceedings. The right of the victim/affected party to participate in the proceedings is recognised under Section 301 and 302 of Cr.P.C. and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expanded the scope of participation of the victim in the Court proceedings. The victim has now been given the right to bring to the notice of the Court certain vital aspects of the case, even where, the case is conducted by the Public Prosecutor. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider a similar issue and has discussed elaborately regarding death by hanging and death by strangulation with specific reference to Modi's. Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology in the case of Satish Nirankari vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2017 SC 3051 : (2017) 8 SCC 497 : LNIND 2017 SC 284. This judgment gives a clear indication as to how the Court can decide the cause of death in a case of this nature. 12. In the considered view of this Court, it is open to the petitioner as a victim/affected parry to place before the trial Court, the materials which according to the petitioner satisfies the requirements of strangulation as the cause of death and can assist the Court to take a decision regarding the alteration/addition of charges in order to see if charge under Section 302 of IPC is sustainable. It goes without saying that it is the exclusive domain of the trial Court to come - its own conclusion for alteration of charges and the petitioner will only be acting as an informant to the Court. 13. It is also left open to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition under Section 301 of Cr.P.C. seeking for assistance of the prosecution during the trial. 14. It also goes without saying that as and when the Court considers alteration of charges, the accused persons are given sufficient safeguards under Section 216 and 217 of Cr.P.C. 15. In view of the above, this Court does not deem it fit to order any reinvestigation in this case and it is left open to the petitioner to workout his remedy in the manner indicated herein above and the Court below shall take a decision based on the materials placed before it and in accordance with law. 16. In view of the above, this Court does not deem it fit to order any reinvestigation in this case and it is left open to the petitioner to workout his remedy in the manner indicated herein above and the Court below shall take a decision based on the materials placed before it and in accordance with law. 16. This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to complete the proceeding in S.C. No. 177 of 2015, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.