THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL PETITION No.3113 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner approached this Court with a prayer to set aside the order dated 21.07.2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Criminal Revision Petition No.77 of 2010, confirming the order 04.02.2010 passed by the learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P.No.5926 of 2009 in S.R.No.9247 of 2009. Heard. The petitioner herein lodged a complaint before the concerned police alleging that the 1st respondent herein induced to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her resulting in her pregnancy and when she insisted him to marry her, he refused to do so and threatened her with dire consequences to pour acid on her and kill her. Basing on the said complaint, the concerned police registered a case in Crime No.486 of 2009 of P.S.Panjagutta, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 493 and 506 IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Panjagutta Police Station, filed an application being Crl.M.P.No.5926 of 2009 before the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, to direct the 1st respondent herein to give blood sample for the purpose of D.N.A. test. By order dated 04.02.2010, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that the Investigating Officer did not give reasons for conducting D.N.A. test to the accused in his requisition and there is no sexual offence in the present case. Aggrieved thereby, Criminal Revision Petition No.77 of 2010 was filed before the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and the same was dismissed by order dated 21.07.2010 holding that the investigating officer has not mentioned the purpose for which the D.N.A. test is required. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, while dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition No.77 of 2010, relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Gowtham Kundu vs. State of West Bengal and another[1]. But, it is to be noticed that subsequent to the said Gowtham Kundu’s case, the Apex Court rendered several latest judgments on the subject matter. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, subjecting a person to D.N.A. test is not against the principles of Constitution and it cannot be called as testimonial compulsion. The resistance of the 1st respondent herein to undergo D.N.A. test will give a presumption against him. Hence, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioner should be granted and the trial Court is directed to order for D.N.A. test of the 1st respondent herein for just decision of the case. With the above direction, this criminal petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself without notice to the accused/1st respondent herein in view of the settled position of law. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 08.04.2011 v v [1] AIR 1993 SC 2295