Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate, present for the applicant.
2. Ms. Mamta Joshi, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent no.1.
3. The present applicant before this Court is an accused in a Complaint Case No. 524 of 2011, which has been registered under Sections 465/468/471 and 120B of IPC.
4. At this juncture, it must be stated that the complaint itself was filed way back in the year 2002 and the above Complaint Number which indicates the year 2011 is the new number which has come up after the computerization. In short, the matter is pending consideration since 2002 i.e. for the last 15 years.
5. The case against the present applicant is that he had interpolated and fabricated public documents and had tried to enter his name in the family register of the complainant, in order to grab his property. The complaint was filed way back in the year 2002 against the applicant under Sections 420/465/466/468/471 and 120B of IPC, in which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance. After the entire case of the prosecution was closed and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC on 09.01.2017, the matter was being adjourned on at least eight dates on an application moved by the defence. Thereafter, on 26.05.2017, an application was filed by the present applicant. This application states that the applicant is actually the first cousin of the complainant, as applicants mother was the wife of the complainants elder brother, and the applicant was born out of this wedlock. After his biological father passed away his mother started living with another person, namely, Sukhee Singh at another place in Bijnor and applicant was also adopted by Sukhee Singh and since his father was the biological brother of the complainant, the applicant has a claim over the property by way of inheritance and for this reason he has prayed that his Deoxyribonucleic acid (commonly known as DNA test) be conducted. This application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 30.06.2017. Against this order, the applicant preferred a revision before the revisional court, which has also been dismissed. Hence, the present application before this Court under Section 482 of CrPC.
6. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as by the revisional court are well considered orders. The revisional court in its order had observed that the application moved by the applicant for DNA test after a period of fifteen years, which is merely a dilatory tactic. The DNA test has absolutely no relevance in the matter. The matter relates to Sections 465/468/471 and 120B of IPC and all court has to see is whether the applicant had actually interfered with the public records or not. Not only the application for DNA test was moved after an inordinate delay of 15 years of which no reasonable explanation was given by the applicant, but the fact remains that the DNA test cannot be ordered as a matter of routine. It is only to be done in deserving cases as laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Goutam Kundu Vs. State of West Bengal & another, reported in (1993) 3 SCC
418 and Banarasi Dass Vs. Teeku Dutta (Mrs) and another, reported in (2005) 4 SCC 449. The present case does not fall in that category. Hence, the application of the applicant for DNA test has rightly been rejected by the courts below.
7. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is being called for by this Court.
8. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 CrPC stands dismissed.
9. The Registrar General of this Court is hereby directed to communicate a copy of this order to the concerned Magistrate for onward compliance so that trial shall proceed as expeditiously as possible preferably as continuous trial on daily basis in accordance with law. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.11.2017 Ankit/