Mutyam Ravi Vs The State of Telangana

Shobha Ravi Muthyam, Wo.Muthyam^{Ravi Aged about 35 years, Occ.} Housewife R/o.Chellewada Village, Airi Taluq Gadichiroli^{District, Maharastra} State.

¶13

,..RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS

¶14

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition,the HighCourt may} be pleased to^quash set aside the Orders^{d1.1210112021passed in} OLN.P.No.374 of 2020 in Crime No.26 of 2019^{on the file of the V Addl.Sessions} Judge, Karimnagar, and^{quash the same, and pass.}

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2021

¶16

Petition under Section 482 o'f Cr.P.C^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of^{Criminal Petition, he HighCourt may} be pleased to Suspend the Orders d1.1210112021^{passed in Crl.M.P.No.374 of} 2O2O in Crime No.26 of 20'19 on the file of^the V^{Addl. Sessions Judge,} Karimnagar,^pending disposal of the above^{criminal petition and pass}

¶17

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon^{perusingthe Memorandum of} Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon^hearing the^arguments of^Sri RAMACHANDAR RAO VEMUGANTI, Advocate^for the^{Petitioner and Sri} M.Vivekananda Reddy, the Assistant^{Public Prosecutor} on^{behalf of the} Respondent No.1 and none appeared^for the^{RespondentNo.2.}

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

¶20

CRIMIN AL PETITION No s.1286 OIr 2021

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This criminal petition has been filed aggr.icved by the order passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judgr:, Karimnagar (,trial Court' for brevity) in Crl.M.p.No.374 of 2020 in ( rime No.26 of 2019 permitting the police to produce the accused, LM,l and LW2 before F.S.L, Hyderabad for collection of blood samples and conducting D.N.A Profrle and compare them for giving opinion regarding whether the accused is biological father of LW2 or not.

¶23

2 Heard Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel fbr the petltioner and Sri M.vivekananda Reddy, learne,-r Assistant public Prosecutor.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the triat Court on l2.ol .2021 is contrary to law. He further submits that the prosecution h:Ls to establish and prove the case beyond reasonabre doubt and the prosecution is not entitled to file application for conducting D.N.A l.est even before filing of the charge sheet and the same is contrary t() Law. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the pr.incipal laid down

¶25

\l

¶26

JSR, J Crlp-12a6 -2O2^t

¶27

2

¶28

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gowtam Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal and. anotherl and the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶29

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that during the pendency of the criminal petition, the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed final report before leamed Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 - cum - III Additional District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar on 15.07.2022 and in the final report, Investigating Offlcer requested the Court to send the A1 to D.N.A., profile test at FSL, Hyderabad, whenever the petitioneraccused present before the said Court. By virtue of the same cause in the present criminal petition does not survive and the prosecution will take appropriate steps in accordance with law before the trial Court in the pending proceedings

¶30

Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the hnal report which was placed by the leamed Assistant Public Prosecutor, it reveals that the lnvestigating Officer after conducting investigation had filed final report before the

¶31

'^{(1993) 3 scc418}

¶32

JSR, J Crlp _1286 _2O2 I

¶33

3

¶34

trial court on 15.07.2022. By virtue of the same. this court is of the considered view that the order dated 12.01.2021 passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.374 of 2020 in Crime No.26 of 2019 is not enforeceable at this point of time and no furrher adjudication is required in the criminal petition. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to raise all the grounds which are plgaded in the present criminal petition and also the principal laid down by the Hon,ble Apex Court in Gowtam Kundu supra whenever the, prosecution fi led application before learned Speciar Judge for Triar ,rf cases under SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989 - cum - III Additional District and Sessions Court, Karimnagar.

¶35