JUDGMENT : Mitali Thakuria, J. Heard Ms. M. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. V. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Ms. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/informant. 2. This application is filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside and quashing of the Investigating Report submitted by the investigating officer (IO) of All Women P. S. Case No. 05/2020 and the consequent order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong Diphu in POCSO Case No. 37/2021, registered under Sections 354/354-A of IPC read with Section 10 of POCSO Act. 3. The brief facts, leading to filing of the present petition is that the petitioner is facing trial in POCSO Case No. 37/2021, under Sections 354 and 354A of the IPC read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. An FIR was registered as All Women P.S. Case No. 05/2020, in which, upon the prayer of the IO, Section 354-A of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi)(w)(i)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (in short SC/ST Act) were added. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition, numbered WP(C) No. 4523/2020, contending that since the caste status of respondent No. 2 and her daughter (the victim) was uncertain, the provisions of the 1989 Act should not be applied in the criminal proceeding against the petitioner. This Court, by order dated 21.10.2020 passed in WP(C) No. 4523/2020, held that until the question of validity of the ST certificates of respondent No. 2 and her daughter is decided by the competent authority, the provisions of the SC/ST Act shall not be applied in the All Women P.S. Case No. 05/2020. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a writ appeal, numbered W.A. No. 190/2020, wherein the Hon’ble Appellate Court, by order dated 21.01.2021, declined to interfere with the earlier order passed in WP(C) No. 4523/2020 and directed the State Level Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the validity of the caste certificates of respondent No. 2 and her daughter. Meanwhile, the investigation in the matter was to continue. Meanwhile, the investigation in the matter was to continue. Initially, the case was pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup (M), but upon an application filed by the petitioner, it was transferred to the court of the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Diphu, and renumbered as POCSO Case No. 37/2021. 4. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the learned Special Judge (POCSO), Diphu, seeking a direction to the IO to submit the investigation status report of the respondent No. 2 and the victim in respect of the offence under the SC/ST Act. However, the said Court dismissed the petition on 15.12.2023, observing that the IO had already filed the part charge sheet under Sections 354/354-A of the IPC read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, and hence there was no scope for further investigation or for calling any additional investigation report. The case was accordingly fixed for framing of charges. Challenging the order dated 15.12.2023, the petitioner filed Criminal Petition No. 104/2024. After hearing both parties, this Court rejected the petition vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2024, holding it to be devoid of merit. 5. Aggrieved by the order of this Court, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2851/2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, assailing the judgment and order dated 08.02.2024 passed in Criminal Petition No. 104/2024. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 05.03.2024, while disposing of the SLP, held that the issue pertaining to the addition of offences under the SC/ST Act or any investigation in respect thereof would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition filed by respondent No. 2. The trial under the IPC and POCSO Act, however, could proceed as per law. In regard to the additional materials available with the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed as follows: “It will be open for the petitioner to provide all relevant materials which they have, which could assist the investigating officer in making a fair investigation either before the magistrate or the Senior Superintendent of Police of the District and also the investigating officer, which shall be dealt with by the concerned agency expeditiously in accordance with law”. 6. 6. In compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner submitted all relevant materials to the IO including screenshots of WhatsApp chats between the informant/respondent No. 2 and the accused/petitioner dated 19.05.2019 and 31.12.2019, as well as Facebook posts with corresponding links, which clearly indicate the mala fides intent and malice of the informant against the petitioner. The petitioner also provided information regarding the availability of photographs and videos from the night of the alleged occurrence, which depict the actual sequence of events surrounding the alleged offence, along with details of witnesses to the circumstances of the incident, whose testimonies are vital for a proper investigation. Following the submission of the aforesaid materials to the IO, in accordance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court's direction, the petitioner approached the learned Trial Court and prayed for a direction to call for a report from the IO regarding the materials furnished by him. Subsequently, by order dated 20.07.2024, the learned Trial Court was pleased to direct the District Superintendent of Police to submit a report on the development made after the petitioner had furnished his documents. Further, on 05.08.2024, the learned Special Judge additionally directed the Superintendent of Police (CID) [in short ‘SP (CID)] to submit the aforesaid report and to prepare a supervisory note regarding the IO’s findings. In compliance with the said order, the SP (CID) forwarded the IO’s investigation report along with the supervisory note. 7. Upon receiving the investigating report along with the supervisory note, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 13.09.2024, directed that the criminal case against the petitioner shall proceed and the petitioner was given liberty to use all documents that he believes has a bearing during the trial of the case. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court had fixed the case on 21.10.2024 for consideration of charge. The petitioner being aggrieved with the investigation report as well as the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) in POCSO Case No. 37/2021 has preferred the present criminal petition, praying for quashing of the impugned investigation report and the impugned order dated 13.09.2024. 8. It is submitted by Ms. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the materials and information furnished by the petitioner to the IO were not only relevant to the case but also had a clear and direct bearing on the merits of the facts in issue. 8. It is submitted by Ms. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, that the materials and information furnished by the petitioner to the IO were not only relevant to the case but also had a clear and direct bearing on the merits of the facts in issue. However, despite the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the IO mechanically submitted the report without considering all the relevant materials furnished by the petitioner and discarded them with the observation that the materials had no bearing on the investigation that had already been conducted and completed. 9. In support of her submissions, she relied on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab reported in (2009) 1 SCC 441 , wherein it was held that the concept of a fair investigation is concomitant with the preservation of the fundamental right under Article 21. The Court held that a person accused of a crime is entitled to a fair investigation. It is a fact that the charge sheet in respect of the offences under the IPC and POCSO Act has already been submitted; however, it was directed that the IO deal with the materials in accordance with the law. In such a situation, it was not permissible for the IO to discard the materials provided by the petitioner, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. She further submitted that the learned Trial Court, in the exercise of its power under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C., ought to have directed the IO to properly investigate the materials furnished by the petitioner in the spirit of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s directions. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the materials furnished by the petitioner, especially the electronic evidence, would require forensic verification, which the petitioner is unable to ensure on his own. Further, the photographs and videos cited by the petitioner are in the possession of the photographer, over whom the petitioner exercises no control. However, she submits that if the materials or information furnished by the petitioner are not properly investigated, it would amount to willful non- compliance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order, and the petitioner would suffer serious prejudice, as he is not in a position to validate or establish the contents of the materials by adducing evidence on his own. However, she submits that if the materials or information furnished by the petitioner are not properly investigated, it would amount to willful non- compliance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order, and the petitioner would suffer serious prejudice, as he is not in a position to validate or establish the contents of the materials by adducing evidence on his own. She further submitted that the case is currently fixed for consideration of charges, and upon framing of charges, the operation of Section 173(8) of the Cr. P.C. ceases to apply, as the trial itself commences, as observed and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. , reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1 , and reiterated in Anant Thanur Karmuse vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. , reported in (2023) 5 SCC 802 . 11. In that context, she relied on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Vadiel vs. K. Shanti & Ors. , reported in 2024 (0) Supreme (SC)84, which held as follows: “Ultimately, the contextual facts and the attendant circumstances have to be singularly evaluated and analyzed to decide the needfulness of further investigation or reinvestigation to unravel the truth and mete out justice to the parties (see Pooja Pal vs. Union of India & Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 135 , para 83). As noticed in Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 2 SCC 322 , (para 20) where fresh materials come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused or where it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, it may be the duty of the investigating agency to investigate the genuineness of the same and submit a report to the court.” 12. She further relied on another decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. , reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347 , wherein it was held as follows: “13. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1979) 2 SCC 322] it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the court. , reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347 , wherein it was held as follows: “13. In Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1979) 2 SCC 322] it was observed by this Court that further investigation is not altogether ruled out merely because cognizance has been taken by the court. When defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, it may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so permitted. It would ordinarily be desirable and all the more so in this case, that the police should inform the court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light instead of being silent over the matter keeping in view only the need for an early trial since an effective trial for real or actual offences found during course of proper investigation is as much relevant, desirable and necessary as an expeditious disposal of the matter by the courts. In view of the aforesaid position in law, if there is necessity for further investigation, the same can certainly be done as prescribed by law. The mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice. We make it clear that we have not expressed any final opinion on the merits of the case.” 13. Ms. Gupta submitted that it is the fundamental right of the accused, under the Constitution of India, to have a fair investigation and a fair trial. To substantiate her submission, she relied on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sidhartha Vashisht Alias Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) , reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1 , specifically referring to paragraphs 197, 199, 201, and 202, which read as follows: “197. In the Indian Criminal jurisprudence, the accused is placed in a somewhat advantageous position than under different jurisprudence of some of the countries in the world. The criminal justice administration system in India places human rights and dignity for human life at a much higher pedestal. In the Indian Criminal jurisprudence, the accused is placed in a somewhat advantageous position than under different jurisprudence of some of the countries in the world. The criminal justice administration system in India places human rights and dignity for human life at a much higher pedestal. In our jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty, the alleged accused is entitled to fairness and true investigation and fair trial and the prosecution is expected to play balanced role in the trial of a crime. The investigation should be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to ensure compliance to the basic rule of law. These are the fundamental canons of our criminal jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 199. It is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency but as well that of the Courts to ensure that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. Equally enforceable canon of criminal law is that the high responsibility lies upon the investigating agency not to conduct an investigation in tainted and unfair manner. The investigation should not prima facie be indicative of bias mind and every effort should be made to bring the guilty to law as nobody stands above law de hors his position and influence in the society. 201. Historically but consistently the view of this Court has been that an investigation must be fair and effective, must proceed in proper direction in consonance with the ingredients of the offence and not in haphazard manner. In some cases besides investigation being effective the accused may have to prove miscarriage of justice but once it is shown the accused would be entitled to definite benefit in accordance with law. The investigation should be conducted in a manner so as to draw a just balance between citizen's right under Articles 19 and 21 and expensive power of the police to make investigation. These well established principles have been stated by this Court in the case of Sasi Thomas vs.State & Ors. and T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala. 202. The investigation should be conducted in a manner so as to draw a just balance between citizen's right under Articles 19 and 21 and expensive power of the police to make investigation. These well established principles have been stated by this Court in the case of Sasi Thomas vs.State & Ors. and T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala. 202. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab [AIR 2009 SC984] this Court specifically stated that a concept of fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We have referred to this concept of judicious and fair investigation as the right of the accused to fair defence emerges from this concept itself. The accused is not subjected to harassment, his right to defence is not unduly hampered and what he is entitled to received in accordance with law is not denied to him contrary to law. 14. Per contra, Ms. Goswami, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, has submitted that the FIR for the incident was lodged by the mother of the victim on 03.01.2020, alleging that the incident took place on 31.12.2019, with allegations of sexual assault on her minor daughter. Although the case was initially registered under the SC/ST Act, the status of the victim and her mother as members of the ST community was unclear. Therefore, the provision of the SC/ST Act was not applied at the All Women Police Station where the case was registered. In WPC 4523/2020, this court had observed that the SC/ST Act should not be applied until the question of the validity of the ST certificate of the victim is decided by the competent authority. Subsequently, in W.A. No. 190/2022, it was observed that the applicability of the SC/ST Act would ultimately depend on the order passed by the scrutiny committee, as the status of SC/ST membership is still pending. It was directed that, since the investigation had already been completed, the normal procedures and consequences under the IPC and the POCSO Act would follow. 15. She further submitted that after several petitions filed by both the petitioner and respondent No. 2, the case had already been charge-sheeted under Sections 354/354-A of the IPC, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. 15. She further submitted that after several petitions filed by both the petitioner and respondent No. 2, the case had already been charge-sheeted under Sections 354/354-A of the IPC, read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. However, the petitioner preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein the issue of whether the SC/ST Act would be applicable in the present case was raised. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that, since the cancellation of the SC/ST status of the victim had already been made and the challenge to that order was pending before the High Court, with no interim order in operation, it was observed that "there would be no justification for either adding offences under those sections or making any investigation in respect of such offences under the SC/ST Act until such time the writ petition filed by the victim/complainant is finally determined”. The trial, insofar as the offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012 are concerned, will proceed as per law. Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not pass any stay order; rather, it directed the trial court to proceed with the case as per law. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to provide all relevant materials they possess, which could assist the IO in conducting a fair investigation. Nevertheless, they did not challenge the charge sheet, which was filed under the provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act, nor was any stay order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, although liberty was granted to the petitioner to furnish the relevant materials which they have before the IO for the sake of a fair investigation. 16. Ms. Goswami further submitted that, in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner accordingly provided some information to the SP (CID), to facilitate the investigation. The learned Special Judge also called for the investigation report along with the supervisory note from the concerned SP. She further submitted that from the information provided to the IO, as reflected in the letter to the petitioner, it is seen that Information Nos. 1 and 2 consist of screenshots of WhatsApp chats between the informant and the accused/petitioner on 19.05.2019 and 31.12.2019, which were voluntary, and Information No. 3 consists of some Facebook posts. She further submitted that from the information provided to the IO, as reflected in the letter to the petitioner, it is seen that Information Nos. 1 and 2 consist of screenshots of WhatsApp chats between the informant and the accused/petitioner on 19.05.2019 and 31.12.2019, which were voluntary, and Information No. 3 consists of some Facebook posts. However, all these pieces of information are irrelevant and bear no connection to the alleged incident. 17. She further submitted that from the charge sheet, it is evident that during the investigation, the accused/petitioner admitted his presence and the presence of the complainant and her children at two crime scenes: the office chamber and Suit Room No. 101 at Hotel Hamri. Thus, there is no dispute that the informant and the victim, as well as the accused/petitioner, were present at the scene on the relevant day of the incident. She also submitted that from the charge sheet, it is apparent that the hotel authorities could not provide the CCTV footage. It was informed in writing that the CCTV footage was stored for only four days and, therefore, could not be collected for the purposes of the investigation. Additionally, she submitted that after the incident, the victim suffered from depression and was mentally affected by the event. Paragraph No. 17.1 (iv) of the charge sheet reveals that there was a consultation with a psychiatrist, who observed that the victim had features suggestive of depression and anxiety, which developed after a traumatic experience on 31.12.2019 during a get-together where the accused/petitioner had assaulted her. 18. Ms. Goswami further submitted that, pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner had already provided all relevant information to the IO. In compliance with the said order, the learned Special Judge called for the report from the IO as well as the supervisory note from the concerned SP(CID). The police had already analyzed all documents and materials presented to the IO and complied with the court's order as well as the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the report was furnished by the IO along with the supervisory note before the learned Special Judge. 19. The police had already analyzed all documents and materials presented to the IO and complied with the court's order as well as the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the report was furnished by the IO along with the supervisory note before the learned Special Judge. 19. She further submitted that the judgment cited by the learned counsels for the petitioner in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht Alias Manu Sharma ( supra is not applicable in the present case, as in that case, the accused was not supplied with all the documents at the relevant time. Paragraphs 216 and 218 of the said judgment read as follows: “216. Under Section 170, the documents during investigation are required to be forwarded to the Magistrate, while in terms of Section 173 (5) all documents or relevant extracts and the statement recorded under Section 161 have to be forwarded to the Magistrate. The investigating officer is entitled to collect all the material, what in his wisdom is required for proving the guilt of the offender. He can record statement in terms of Section 161 and his power to investigate the matter is a very wide one, which is regulated by the provisions of the Code. The statement recorded under Section 161 is not evidence per se under Section 162 of the Code. The right of the accused to receive the documents/statements submitted before the Court is absolute and it must be adhered to by the prosecution and the Court must ensure supply of documents/statements to the accused in accordance with law. Under proviso to Section 162 (1) the accused has a statutory right of confronting the witnesses with the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code thus indivisible. 218. The liberty of an accused cannot be interfered with except under due process of law. The expression `due process of law' shall deem to include fairness in trial. The Court gives a right to the accused to receive all documents and statements as well as to move an application for production of any record or witness in support of his case. This constitutional mandate and statutory rights given to the accused places an implied obligation upon the prosecution (prosecution and the prosecutor) to make fair disclosure. The concept of fair disclosure would take in its ambit furnishing of a document which the prosecution relies upon whether filed in Court or not. This constitutional mandate and statutory rights given to the accused places an implied obligation upon the prosecution (prosecution and the prosecutor) to make fair disclosure. The concept of fair disclosure would take in its ambit furnishing of a document which the prosecution relies upon whether filed in Court or not. That document should essentially be furnished to the accused and even in the cases where during investigation a document is bona fide obtained by the investigating agency and in the opinion of the prosecutor is relevant and would help in arriving at the truth, that document should also be disclosed to the accused.” 20. In the instant case, the charge sheet itself has not been challenged by the petitioner, and the only issue raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was the applicability of the SC/ST Act, as well as the caste status of the victim and the informant/respondent No.2. Thus, she further submitted that the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya ( Supra ) is also not applicable in the instant case. 21. She further submitted that the trial court cannot consider any materials for the accused at the time of framing the charge, and no provision of the Cr.P.C. grants the right to the accused to file any materials or documents at this stage. The right to do so is granted only at the stage of trial. In this context, she relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi , reported in (2005) 1 SCC 568 and emphasized on paragraphs 16, 18, and 23 of the said judgment, which read as follows: “16. All the decisions, when they hold that there can only be limited evaluation of materials and documents on record and sifting of evidence to prima facie find out whether sufficient ground exists or not for the purpose of proceeding further with the trial, have so held with reference to materials and documents produced by the prosecution and not the accused. The decisions proceed on the basis of settled legal position that the material as produced by the prosecution alone is to be considered and not the one produced by the accused. The latter aspect relating to the accused though has not been specifically stated, yet it is implicit in the decisions. It seems to have not been specifically so stated as it was taken to be well settled proposition. The latter aspect relating to the accused though has not been specifically stated, yet it is implicit in the decisions. It seems to have not been specifically so stated as it was taken to be well settled proposition. This aspect, however, has been adverted to in State Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad and Another v. P. Suryaprakasam [1999 SCC (Crl.) 373] where considering the scope of Sections 239 and 240 of the Code it was held that at the time of framing of charge, what the trial court is required to, and can consider are only the police report referred to under Section 173 of the Code and the documents sent with it. The only right the accused has at that stage is of being heard and nothing beyond that (emphasis supplied). The judgment of the High Court quashing the proceedings by looking into the documents filed by the accused in support of his claim that no case was made out against him even before the trial had commenced was reversed by this Court. It may be noticed here that learned counsel for the parties addressed the arguments on the basis that the principles applicable would be same whether the case be under Sections 227 and 228 or under Sections 239 and 240 of the Code. 18. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The reliance on Articles 14 and 21 is misplaced. The scheme of the Code and object with which Section 227 was incorporated and Sections 207 and 207 (A) omitted have already been noticed. Further, at the stage of framing of charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible. If the contention of the accused is accepted, there would be a mini trial at the stage of framing of charge. That would defeat the object of the Code. It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. The acceptance of the contention of the learned counsel for the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence. By way of illustration, it may be noted that the plea of alibi taken by the accused may have to be examined at the stage of framing of charge if the contention of the accused is accepted despite the well settled proposition that it is for the accused to lead evidence at the trial to sustain such a plea. The accused would be entitled to produce materials and documents in proof of such a plea at the stage of framing of the charge, in case we accept the contention put forth on behalf of the accused. That has never been the intention of the law well settled for over one hundred years now. It is in this light that the provision about hearing the submssions of the accused as postulated by Section 227 is to be understood. It only means hearing the submissions of the accused on the record of the case as filed by the prosecution and documents submitted therewith and nothing more. The expression 'hearing the submissions of the accused' cannot mean opportunity to file material to be granted to the accused and thereby changing the settled law. At the state of framing of charge hearing the submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police. 23. As a result of aforesaid discussion, in our view, clearly the law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. Satish Mehra's case holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided.” 22. She also relied on another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case of Union of India & Anr. vs. W.N Chadha , reported in 1993 SUPP (4) SCC 260, and specifically relied on paragraphs 89, 90, 91, and 92 of the said judgment, which read as follows: “89. She also relied on another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in case of Union of India & Anr. vs. W.N Chadha , reported in 1993 SUPP (4) SCC 260, and specifically relied on paragraphs 89, 90, 91, and 92 of the said judgment, which read as follows: “89. Applying the above principle, it may be held that when the investigating officer is not deciding any matter except collecting the materials for ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out or not and a full enquiry in case of filing a report under Section 173(2) follows in a trial before the Court or Tribunal pursuant to the filing of the report, it cannot be said that at that stage rule of audi alteram partem superimposes an obligation to issue a prior notice and hear the accused which the statute does not expressly recognise. The question is not whether audi alterant partem is implicit, but whether the occasion for its attraction exists at all. 90. Under the scheme of Chapter XII of the CrPC, there are various provisions under which no prior notice or opportunity of being heard is conferred as a matter of course to an accused person while the proceeding is in the stage of an investigation by a police officer. 91. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992] Supp. 1 SCC 335 at 359, this Court to which both of us (Ratnavel Pandian and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.) were parties after making reference to the decision of the Privy Council in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad and the decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha has pointed out that"...the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating agencies over which the courts cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation...." 92. More so, the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. More so, the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Save under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code or in a proceeding instituted otherwise than on a police report till the process is issued under Section 204 of the Code, as the case may be. Even in cases where cognizance of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding that the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the accused has no right to have participation till the process is issued. In case the issue of process is postponed as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the accused may attend the subsequent inquiry but cannot participate. There are various judicial pronouncements to this effect but we feel that it is not necessary to recapitulate those decisions. At the same time, we would like to point out that there are certain provisions under the Code empowering the Magistrate to give an opportunity of being heard under certain specified circumstances.” 23. Accordingly, she submitted that the accused/petitioner is filing petitions one after another solely to harass respondent No. 2, with the intent to delay the disposal of the case and deprive respondent No. 2 from getting justice for her daughter. Thus, she submits that this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 24. Mr. Baruah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the learned Special Judge rightly passed the order for framing the charge after considering the investigation report submitted by the IO as well as the supervisory note from the concerned SP (CID). He further submitted that since 2021, the trial has not commenced due to various petitions filed by the petitioner in this case. The girl is alleged to have been molested on two occasions by the petitioner, but to date, she has not received any justice. He also submitted that the petitioner will have ample opportunity to raise those issues during the framing of the charge as well as during the recording of his defence evidence. The girl is alleged to have been molested on two occasions by the petitioner, but to date, she has not received any justice. He also submitted that the petitioner will have ample opportunity to raise those issues during the framing of the charge as well as during the recording of his defence evidence. Therefore, he submits that the learned Special Judge has not committed any error or mistake in passing the order, which accepted the investigation report and the supervisory note from the police officers. Accordingly, he submits that this is a fit case for the present petition to be dismissed, and that the learned Special Judge should be directed to proceed with the case. 25. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for setting aside and quashing the Investigating Report submitted by the IO in All Women P.S. Case No. 05/2020 and the consequent order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu in POCSO Case No. 37/2021. The petitioner had earlier preferred an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08.02.2024 passed in Criminal Petition No. 104/2024 by this Court. In that order, the petitioner’s prayer seeking a direction to the IO to submit an investigating report regarding the caste status of respondent No. 2 and her victim daughter was rejected, and the order dated15.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO) was upheld. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 05.03.2024 while disposing of the SLP, held that the issue pertaining to the addition of offences under the SC/ST Act or any related investigation would be subject to the outcome of a writ petition filed by respondent No. 2. It further directed that the trial under the IPC as well as the POCSO Act should proceed. The petitioner was also directed to provide all relevant materials to assist the IO in conducting a fair investigation and to place the same before the Senior Superintendent of Police. It is seen that, pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner submitted all materials he considered relevant for a fair investigation before the said SP. The petitioner was also directed to provide all relevant materials to assist the IO in conducting a fair investigation and to place the same before the Senior Superintendent of Police. It is seen that, pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner submitted all materials he considered relevant for a fair investigation before the said SP. The learned Special Judge (POCSO), upon considering the petitioner’s prayer, called for a report from the IO along with a supervisory note from the concerned SP. The materials provided to the IO included screenshots of WhatsApp chats between the informant/respondent No. 2 and the accused/petitioner dated 19.05.2019 and 31.12.2019, as well as certain Facebook posts and corresponding links, which the petitioner claims indicate the mala fide intention and malice of the informant. Information regarding the availability of photographs and videos from the night of the occurrence, and the names of certain witnesses deemed vital to the prosecution, was also furnished. 27. Based on the information provided by the petitioner, an investigation was conducted, and a report was accordingly prepared by the IO and submitted to the learned Special Judge, accompanied by the supervisory note. From the investigation report, it appears that all materials placed before the IO were thoroughly analysed. The IO concluded that the materials provided by the petitioner had no bearing on the investigation, which had already been completed, and a charge sheet had been filed. After reviewing the IO’s report, the SP (CID) also submitted a detailed supervisory note. It is further noted that the materials provided by the petitioner, screenshots of WhatsApp chats and certain Facebook posts were indeed examined. However, although the IO had requested the hotel authority to provide CCTV footage of the day of the incident, the footage could not be retrieved, which might have been crucial evidence in the prosecution's case. After analysing all materials submitted by the petitioner, the IO concluded that these materials were not relevant and bore no impact on the prosecution’s case. Considering the IO’s report and the supervisory note, the learned Special Judge, by order dated 13.09.2024, accepted the report and fixed the matter for consideration of charge, observing that the defence would be at liberty to use all documents deemed relevant during the trial. 28. Considering the IO’s report and the supervisory note, the learned Special Judge, by order dated 13.09.2024, accepted the report and fixed the matter for consideration of charge, observing that the defence would be at liberty to use all documents deemed relevant during the trial. 28. In compliance with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner’s materials were produced before the IO, thoroughly analysed, and a conclusion was reached that they had no bearing on the present case. The SP concerned supported this conclusion with a detailed supervisory note. However, both the IO and the learned Special Judge observed that the petitioner may produce these materials at the time of his defence to substantiate his plea. Furthermore, the petitioner has provided names of witnesses he considers relevant, and these witnesses may also be examined at the stage of defence evidence. While screenshots, videos, and photographs may not be relevant to the prosecution at this stage, they may still assist the defence in establishing innocence. Moreover, in State of Orissa (supra), as cited by learned counsel for respondent No. 2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that no provision under the Cr.P.C. allows the accused to file material or documents at the stage of framing of charge; such rights are only available during trial. At the charge- framing stage, only materials produced by the prosecution are to be considered. 29. In the instant case, although it was previously registered under the SC/ST Act, the investigation regarding the ST/caste status of respondent No. 2 and her daughter is ongoing. As noted above, both this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court have allowed proceedings to continue against the petitioner based on the charge sheet filed under the IPC and POCSO Act. Even after the filing of the charge sheet, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s order, the petitioner’s materials were analyzed, and the resulting report, supported by the supervisory note of the concerned SP, was submitted. Based on this, the learned Special Judge passed the order dated 13.09.2024, fixing the matter for consideration of charge. 30. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO). Accordingly, there is no justification to quash the order dated 13.09.2024 or the investigation report submitted by the IO, along with the supervisory note. 30. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO). Accordingly, there is no justification to quash the order dated 13.09.2024 or the investigation report submitted by the IO, along with the supervisory note. Hence, the present petition seeking quashing of the said order and report under Section 528 of BNSS, read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is hereby dismissed. 31. With above observation, this criminal petition stands disposed of.