JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'Cr.P.C.') seeking quashing of supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C (Annexure P-6) as well as the order dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal whereby the objections of the petitioner against filing of a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C were dismissed, in the case stemming from FIR No.113 dated 22.07.2015 registered under Sections 354-A, 354-B IPC at Police Station Rajound.

factual background

2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged by the prosecution, are that the petitioner obtained the mobile number of the respondent No.2 and would talk to her in a filthy language. He would ask her to make physical relations with him but she refused multiple times. Subsequently, the petitioner came to her house on a motorcycle. He stepped into her bedroom and tried to rape her. The respondent No.2 threw chili powder on him and locked him in the room. She raised alarm causing the petitioner to run away through the roof. A crowd gathered, hearing her screams, and damaged the motorcycle of the petitioner, parked outside the house of the respondent No.2.

3. On completion of investigation, the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted on the basis of which, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal (hereinafter 'JMIC') framed charge under Section 354-A IPC. Thereafter, respondent No.2 moved an application dated 31.07.2015 before the National Scheduled Caste Commission seeking offences under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter 'SC/ST Act') to be added to FIR(supra).

4. An application was moved by the police authorities dated 30.01.2016 wherein it was stated that an offence under the SC/ST Act is made out against the petitioner. However, the JMIC dismissed the same vide order dated 30.01.2016 (Annexure P-5). In spite of the dismissal, DSP Satish Gautam reinvestigated the matter and filed a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. whereby offence under SC/ST Act was added. Since offence under the SC/ST Act was added, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. The petitioner raised objections to the addition of offence under the SC/ST Act by way of supplementary report, which were dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure P-7).

contentions

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that respondent No.2 had moved a representation before the National Scheduled Caste Commission with mala fide intention to get undue monetary benefit. Moreover, the JMIC had already rejected the investigating agency's application to add offence under the SC/ST Act to the FIR(supra), after due application of judicial mind, vide order dated 30.01.2016 (Annexure P-5). As such, the investigating authority ought not to have reinvestigated the case, merely under pressure from the National Scheduled Caste Commission. Further, the investigating agency did not seek permission from the learned JMIC to further investigate into the matter and submit a supplementary report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, no new material has come on the record to justify this exercise. The learned JMIC has erred in committing the case to the Court of Sessions on the basis of the supplementary report. However, the petitioner raised objections to the same before the learned Court of Sessions but the same was unfairly dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure P-7).

6. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has committed the alleged offence on respondent No.2 due to her caste identity. She only approached the National Scheduled Caste Commission when the police failed to investigate the matter properly at the first instance as they had not provided call details in the final report submitted by them. Therefore, the offence unde