The prayers in the above captioned Criminal Miscellaneous Case is for a direction which reads as follows:
i) ............ to quash/set aside Annexure-A5, Final Report dated 15.6.2010 in Crime No.40/2010 (Vellarada Police Station) in S.C.No.900/2011 pending before the Assistant Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara and all further proceedings pursuant to the same being arbitrary, illegal, unsustainable and as an abuse of the process of the Court.
ii) If in any case this Honourable Court is not inclined to interfere in the trial of the case, this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue necessary directions/orders to Assistant Sessions Judge, Neyyattinkara to keep in abeyance the trial of the case till conducting DNA test to establish the disputed paternity of the child born to the defacto complainant in connection with the allegation in the above case and to issue such orders as deem fit for further investigation in the above case to reveal the same, in the interest of justice.
2. This petition has been filed seeking invocation of the inherent powers conferred on this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. When the matter was taken up for consideration, Sri.C.A.Navas & Sri.Shiraz Abdulla, learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner in this case, would submit that the petitioner would limit the consideration of the matter for prayer No.(ii) alone and that contentions based on prayer No.
(i) may be kept open. Sri.Shiraz Abdulla, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to file appropriate application before the court below concerned seeking for a direction from that court to conduct a DNA test to ascertain scientific veracity of the disputed paternity of the child born to the defacto complainant. The petitioner would contend that if DNA test is scientifically conducted by a scientific institution, then it should be established that the petitioner is not the father of the child of the defacto complainant and that consequently he can defend his case properly in that regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court dated 15.10.2014 in the case between Dipanita Roy v. Ronobroto Roy in Civil Appeal No.9744/2014 arising out of S.L.P(C).No.5694/2013, and various other decisions of the Apex Court as in the case Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and another reported in 2014(2) SCC 576 etc, and decisions of High Courts. The learned counsel would submit that the court below may directed to consider such application on merits and in accordance with law as laid down by the Apex Court and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, State as well as to the defacto complainant. The submission made in this behalf appears to be reasonable and fair.
3. Accordingly, liberty is given to the petitioner herein to file appropriate application before the court below concerned praying for a direction of the said court so as to ensure the conduct of DNA test to ascertain the disputed paternity of the child born to the defacto complainant. In the event of such application being filed, the court below will issue notice in the matter to the petitioner, the Public Prosecutor concerned as well as to the defacto complainant and consider the prayer in such application in accordance with law keeping in view the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions that may be cited by the parties in that behalf. The petitioner undertakes to file such application within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The court below will pass orders on such application as directed above without much delay, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
4. As far as prayer No.(i) of the Crl.M.C is concerned, the contention of the petitioner in that regard are kept open, with liberty to invoke appropriate remedy at the appropriate time.
Crl.M.C stands disposed of as above.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.