Pawan Kumar S/O Lalaram B/C ... vs Smt Babita W/O Sh. Pawan, D/O Sh. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6249 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1781/2019

Pawan Kumar S/o Lalaram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village
Pichuna, Tehsil Rupwas, District Bharatpur.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
Smt Babita W/o Sh. Pawan, D/o Sh. Brijendra, R/o Khatnawali,
Tehsil And Thana Bayana, District Bharatpur.
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deen Dayal Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 15.09.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 19.09.2022

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482

Cr. P. C. has been filed against the order dated 28.02.2019 passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Bayana

(Bharatpur) (for Short "learned Revisional Court") in Criminal

Revision No.48/2018 titled as "Pawan Kumar Vs. Smt. Babita",

whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner has been

dismissed and the order dated 11.07.2018 passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana (Bharatpur) (for Short

"learned trial Court") in Criminal Case No.200/2016 titled as

"Babita Vs. Pawan Kumar", whereby application filed by the

petitioner for conducting D.N. A. test of minor-Preet Kumar was

rejected.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1781/2019]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had filed an application before the learned trial Court for

D.N. A. examination of minor-Preet Kumar but learned trial Court

vide order dated 11.07.2018 dismissed the application filed by the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the

petitioner had filed revision petition of the said order but learned

Revisional Court also dismissed the revision petition. Learned

counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial

Court as well as learned Revisional Court had erred in dismissed

the application filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that respondent had filed petition under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court in which she had

sought maintenance for herself and minor-Preet Kumar. Learned

counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent is

residing separately with the petitioner from the month of May,

2002 and petitioner had no access with respondent. So, Preet

Kumar is not son of the petitioner. So, in the interest of Justice, he

had filed an application for conducting D.N. A. test before the

learned trial Court but learned trial Court rejected the application

filed by the petitioner without assigning any cogent reason and

learned Revisional Court also erred in dismissing the revision

petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

upon the judgment of High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad

For The States of Telengana And Andhra Pradesh in

Criminal Revision No.979/2018 ("Sanneerappa Vs. State Of

A. P. by Its Public Prosecutor") decided on 05.07.2018.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1781/2019]

submitted that the order of the learned trial Court as well as

learned Revisional Court do not suffer from any illegality or

infirmity. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that

paternity of Preet Kumar cannot be decided by D.N.A. test.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

Apex Court in the case of "Ashok Kumar Vs. Raj Gupta and

others" reported in (2022) SCC 20 stated that person cannot

be compelled to undergo for D.N.A. test against his will. So,

petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and liable to be

dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent and perused the impugned order.

In my considered opinion, order of the learned trial

Court as well as learned Revisional Court do not suffer from any

illegality or infirmity and the learned trial Court rightly rejected

the application filed by the petitioner for D.N.A. test. So, the

present petition, devoid of merits, liable to be dismissed.

Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands

dismissed.

Stay application also stands disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/85

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)