Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by Accused No.1 (for short A.1) of Crime No.217 of 2016 of Women Police Station, DD, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.2305 of 2016 passed by the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, allowing the petition filed by the State, represented by the Station House Officer, Womens Police Station, D.D., Hyderabad, and directing the petitioner/A.1 to undergo medical test/potency test for Erectile Dysfunction (for short E.D.) at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, on 22.08.2016, with a further direction to the Investigating Officer, Women Police Station, DD, City Crime Station, Hyderabad, to take necessary steps.

2. The contentions in the grounds of revision vis-a-vis the oral submissions in the course of hearing by the learned counsel for A.1

- revision petitioner are that the impugned order of the Court below is contrary to law, wholly unsustainable and failure of justice, that too from the allegations read from FIR against the potency of petitioner A.1, made by the defacto-complainant, it is nothing but intruding into the personal liberty and privacy and to compel petitioner A.1 against his wish and such invasive tests will be contrary to and violative of the rights against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, that same is subjecting the petitioner A.1 to oppressive and degrading treatment, that it is also prohibitive under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, besides in violation of various pronouncements of the Honble Apex Court, that the learned Judge failed to see that the test for E.D. requires injection to be given to the private parts and certain extracts made, which is violative of Right to Privacy and is contrary to Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, that the learned Judge failed to see that the offence of cheating as to the representation could not in the facts of the case render Section 53 of Cr.P.C. applicable, that the object of the police in insisting upon the petitioner A.1 to undergo the potency test is merely a device to harass him and playing in the hands of the defacto-complainant, that the learned Judge failed to see that the reason for the ED can also be caused due to psychological reasons, like serious amount of stress, which results in temporary disability and any test conducted on the petitioner A.1 cannot be the basis that the petitioner A.1 suffered from such ED 4 years earlier and hence, sought for dismissal of the impugned order.

3. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned counsel for defacto-complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor that the order of the Court below is well within its scope contemplated by law and the same is necessary for the effective adjudication of the criminal lis and there is nothing to interfere therewith and it cannot be stated as intruding into the privacy or in effecting of Fundamental Right, which is not even when absolute, but for qualified, that too subject to due process of law to obey to the orders of the Court in submitting to the requirement of the potency test and hence to dismiss the revision.

6. Basing on the above facts, the revision 1st respondent - Police in the course of investigation filed the aforesaid Crl.M.P.No.2305 of 2016 in Crime No.217 of 2016 seeking to send A.1 for medical check up/potency test to prove whether he is fit for matrimonial life or not, and as he is not ready to go for medical examination, the potency test is required in directing him to appear before the Osmania General Hospital for the same.

7. The same is opposed by A.1 in his counter dated 15.07.2016 by denying the averments and by imputing as a false case and by disputing the allegation of marriage not consummated or he is unfit for marital life or he suppressed any such fact or he cheated his wife or parents-in-laws and with a contention that the said allegations are baseless and made only to malign him with character assassination against him and his family and the alleged cruelty or harassment from him and his parents is also false, that he had already filed W.P.No.10222 of 2016 before the Honble High Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, as the police are frequently calling him to the Police Station without registering the FIR and the said writ petition is still pending, that after receiving notices in the said writ petition, the police registered the present complaint vide Crime No.217 of 2016 against him and his family members, that as the marriage took place over four years ago i.e., on 18.03.2012 and the alleged dishonest representation/ suppression and that E.D. can also be caused by psychological reasons, like serious amount of stress, which can be a temporary disability and hence, conducting of such test today and the result thereof cannot be the basis to say that the respondent is suffering from such E.D. four years earlier, that he never had any physical deformity resulting in E.D., which is evident from the medical reports given after due tests, that for undergoing such test he has to be given injection to the critical parts of the body and the results of such test being used in a criminal case is prohibited as it is violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, besides in violation of various pronouncements of the Apex Court, that as no sexual offence has been alleged, the Investigating Agency cannot compel him to undergo such potency test to disprove an offence under Section 420 of IPC and hence sought for dismissal of the petition.