KATHI DAVID RAJU versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. on 5 August 2019

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 04.06.2018dismissing the application under Section 482 of the Code of CriminalProcedure (Cr.P.C.) filed by the appellant for quashing the order dated22.01.2016 passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla. TheHigh Court by the impugned judgment has dismissed the application underSection 482, Cr.P.C. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are:

4. Respondent No.2 filed First Information Report dated06.01.2016 under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC against theappellant. The substance of the allegation in the FIR was that the appellanthas obtained a fake Scheduled Caste certificate of caste ‘Yanadi’whereas he belonged to ‘Telanga’ caste. It was further alleged that theappellant on the basis of caste certificate obtained employment andworking as Additional Assistant Engineer in V.T.P.S. ElectricityGeneration Corporation. The original name of the appellant is‘Immadabathina Veeranjaneyulu s/o Venkata Kotaiah’. The appellanthas changed his name as ‘Kathi David Raju son of Yedulcondalu’. It isfurther pleaded that two children of the appellant had also obtained fakecaste certificate of ‘Yanadi’ caste. On the basis of FIR, the appellantwas arrested on 11.01.2016 and sent for judicial remand. On 13.01.2016,an application was filed before the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bapatlarequesting that the Court may direct conducting of DNA test of the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aappellant, the mother of the appellant and the two brothers of the appellant.The Additional Junior Civil Judge by order dated 22.01.2016 directed forconducting DNA test at the request made by the Station House Officer(SHO), Bapatla Town Police Station.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.01.2016 passed by theBAdditional Junior Civil Judge, an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.has been filed by the appellant in the High Court praying for quashing oforder dated 22.01.2016 which has been dismissed by the High Court bythe impugned judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learnedCMagistrate committed error in directing for conducting DNA test oninsufficient grounds and material. The Investigation Authorities havenot completed the investigation and as roving and fishing enquiry, theycannot be permitted to conduct DNA test on the appellant. It is furthersubmitted that respondent No.2 is claimed to be an office bearer of fakeassociation who due to personal ill-will against the appellant has lodgedDFIR questioning the caste certificate of the appellant. It is submitted thatthere is an enactment viz. The Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST and BCs)Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 under whichthere is a provision for cancellation of false community certificate,provision of penalty and other relevant provisions. The FIR lodged byErespondent No.2 was an act of malice and it was with an intent to harassthe appellant.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that thepolice authorities had rightly requested the Court for permitting them toconduct DNA test since the allegations in the FIR have been made thatFthe appellant is son of ‘Venkat Kotaiah’ whereas he claimed to be son of‘Yedulcondalu’. It is also submitted that Section 53 Cr.P.C. empowersthe police officer to request for DNA test.

8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel forthe parties and perused the record.

G

9. As noted above, the FIR was lodged on 06.01.2016 where theallegation against the appellant was of obtaining a false caste certificateof Scheduled Caste with a further allegation that he originally belongedto ’Telanga’ caste. The appellant was arrested on 11.01.2016 and on13.01.2016 itself, the SHO submitted an application in the Court of H

Additional Junior Civil Judge for permitting conducting of DNA test onwhich impugned order was passed. The impugned order itself noted thefollowing submission:- “The learned APP submitted that the investigation not yetcompleted and material evidence yet to be collected and also policecustody is required to complete the investigation. Furthercontended that the DNA test in between the accused No.1 andmother of the accused No.1 along with family members of theaccused No.1 is most required to prove the blood relationship inbetween the accused NO.1 and mother of parental relatives ofthe accused NO.1. Hence, the learned APP request the court toallow the petition for examine respondent /accused for DNA test.”

10. There can be no dispute to the right of police authorities toseek permission of the Court for conducting DNA test in an appropriatecase. In the present case, FIR alleges obtaining false caste certificateby the appellant by changing his name and parentage. The orderimpugned itself notices that investigation is not yet completed and materialevidence are yet to be collected. The police authorities without beingsatisfied on material collected or conducting substantial investigation haverequested for DNA test which is nothing but a step towards roving andfishing enquiry on a person, his mother and brothers. It is a seriousmatter which should not be lightly to be resorted to without there beingappropriate satisfaction for requirement of such test.

11. It is the submission of learned counsel for the respondent thatSection 53 Cr.P.C empowers the police authorities to request a medicalpractitioner to conduct examination of a person. There cannot be anydispute to the provision empowering police authorities to make such arequest. Present is a case where without carrying out any substantialinvestigation, the police authorities had jumped on the conclusion thatDNA test should be obtained. It was too early to request for conduct ofDNA test without carrying out substantial investigation by the policeauthorities. The Additional Junior Civil Judge also failed to notice that inthe investigation conducted by the Investigating Authority no suchmaterials have been brought on the basis of which it could have beenopined that conducting DNA test is necessary for the appellant on hismother and two brothers.

A

BC

DE

FG

H

[2019] 10 S.C.R.

A12. We, thus, are of the view that the order passed by the AdditionalJunior Civil Judge dated 22.01.2016 was unsustainable. The High Courtcommitted error in not setting aside the said order in exercise of itsinherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

13. In result, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgmentBand order passed by the High Court as well as the order of the AdditionalJunior Civil Judge dated 22.01.2016. It shall, however, be open for theCourt concerned to consider the request for conducting DNA test onthere being sufficient materials on record to take any such decision.

14. The appeal is allowed to the above extent.

C

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H