5’3 HEGH €§URT GF'CHHATTES6A§H iaT BfLASPUg WRIT PETETIGN i227i E¢2245i2038 PETITIONER Durgesh Singh Thakur' Vs REsPoNDENTs ‘ Sfa'rg of C.G_. and ofhers P§ST FO§ G§DER5 ON 30*;PQEL 2fm£ Sd/— [i Dhirendra Mishrag Judge °?_3.é.2663 \ H16H CGURT GP CHHATTES§ARH AT BILASFUR MLPJEZH Na.2245 af 20G8 PETTTIGRER Durgesh 5ingh Thakur‘, 5/6 Wmnjdy Singh Aged about 40 year's, Working fr: ZiEa Sahkm-i Bank, Branch-Chhuiekhadm, Dist Rajnan§guon (6.5.) ‘x’s gESPGNDENTS 1. 5Tafe of: C6” Through- 5H0, Felice Simion- Khairagarh, Di§?—Rajnandgaon {am 2. Sashikuia, W/o Manga! Yaéva, Rged abcu? 35 years, R/Q Bazar Afmrin, Tahs§!— Khaimgarh, D§s¢= Rajnandgaon Af presen? a? Chhuiekhadan, Tehsii- Chhuiekhadan, Bisf- Eajnandgaon ((3.6) 3. Deapak (Minor) S/o Mangal Yadav Aged abouf 3‘ years, Q/o éazm' A‘h‘aria. 4. Pinku (Minor) 5/0 Mange! Yadav Aged abouf3yenrs. Boi'h are represerrfed ‘rhrcugh mofher Sashikala, R/o Bazar A??aria, Tahsii- Khaimgur'h, Emu Rajncmdgam 1-H presen‘f a? Dis'f- Chhuiekhadan, Rajmnd'gann (£16.) Fahsib Chhuiekhsdan, Mr. HS. riHuwalEa, Adv, for The peiifioner. Presem: Mr. 5a‘fish Gupfa, Govt Advoca‘fe for ‘i’he 5mm. ORDER (Passeé on 3_QJ¢.2G$&) N. Per Ehirendm Mishr'a .TK . Indin has prayed far a wrh‘ in 'Hqe mfure of cerTicmri for quashing The order dm‘ed 14.3.2008 (Annzxure P-5) passed by fhe Addifional Sessions fudge, Khaimgarh in Criminal Revisiois Ne.i06/06 whereby f'rie criminal revision preferred by ‘ihe pefii'ianer agairis’r fine crder of fhe Add'ifionai Chie‘F judiciai Magisfmie‘ Khairagari'i allowing i'ne apglica'iion u'F respondeni’ N02 and direcling ihe pe‘iiiiener & respondeni No.3 & ii iii face Deoxy Riieonucieic ficid ‘i‘es‘i‘ (for Sheri ‘DN/ii’) has been dismiseed. Mr. Ahiuwalia, learneci counsel for +l1e pe’fi‘l’ioner vehemenily argued il’mi if i§ seiiled law Thai ihe cour‘is should no‘i antler such medical fesi as a mailer cf ceurse uniess inere i§ sfrong nrima racie case anci gufficieni .. DJ. 31 :3 uh “1. x mafet‘iai beforé ‘H’lé cour‘ii in i’he inshm‘f case 'i‘he husbcmd @f responden‘i‘ NOZ-Sas'nikaia is dive and fher'e is evidence awaiiahie on recgrd f’rm'f fhe said Mangal Vaduv has an access 1‘0 respwde‘n’f N02. Learned Judicial Magisfm're whiie r-gjzm”ing fhe appiica‘rim for- iFrTeFim mamfemnce has recorded a finding 'i‘rm‘i i'i’ is prima—facie es‘mbiigheé fi'ia'i’ appiicam‘ Néffrespmdcanf No.3 herein is The son of Mangai Yadav. This Caurf vide order daiea’ 16.4.2007 pariiy ailowed The wri‘i pe‘i’i‘fian 3f The pe‘ii’iiener herein and remi‘i‘ied The ma’H‘er‘ T‘o Addi‘iional SessiO’ns 3'udge, Khaimgarh wh‘h a direcfion +0 decide The issue 0e The basis 6'? oiher evidences before passing a dineciiun of DNA fesi, hewever, The ceur‘i‘ beiow wiihoui' iher‘e being any mm‘er'iai on recer-d has passed “die impugned order. . Learned Addiiiendi Sessions iudge has passed The impugned order‘ abserving "rims:- a. The dispuTe beTween The parTies reiaTes To paTer-niTy of appiican‘i' No.2 & 3, as The peTiTioner has denied To he Their ia‘iner‘: b. Responden'i No.2 has sTaTed on aaTh TimT she resided wiTh The non-appiicanT as his wife ”For severai days and The chiidren were born Through Their cohabiTaTion: c. in The birTh cer‘TiTicaTe Tiled by The respondenT No.2 The ne'rne OT The peTiTioner has been menTioned as The TaTher OT The children. . Considering The naTure of dispuTe beTween The parTies and The Tam ThaT paTerniTy OT chiidren can be decided by direcTing The peTiTioner and Twa chiidren To face DNA TesT and furTher keeping in View The above reasons assigned hy The iearned AddiTionai Sessions judge in This regard, T am of The opinion ThaT There is no iiiegaiiTy, infirmiTy or jurisdicTionai error oommiTTed by The courT beiow which may occasion Taiiure OT jusTice or manifesT injusTice To The peTiTioner. if The peTiTioner” refuses To face DNA TesT, invThaT siTuaTion necessary inference may be drawn by The concerned courT whiie appreciaTing The eyidence. e Sd/— i - . WiTh The aforesaid ohservaTions, The peTiTion is dismissed. Dhirendra Mishra; . Judge i - 30/4/2003, N f ‘