IMPORTANT POINT
Voice sample is not evidence – There is no provision to compel the party to proceedings under Domestic Violence Act to give voice sample – Article 20(2) of Constitution of India cannot be made applicable.

JUDGMENT

Shailesh P. Brahme, J.—Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides with their consent finally at the admission stage.

2. Petitioners are challenging order dated 14.02.2024 passed below Exhibit-114 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parner in Criminal M.A No. 75 of 2013, refusing to direct the Respondent to give her voice sample for referring it to authorize forensic laboratory for verification/identification of her recorded voice in compact disc and the memory card. The Respondents have instituted proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of ‘The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005’ (in short Act of 2005) against the Petitioners in Criminal M.A No. 75 of 2013 which are at the stage of arguments.

3. The controversy between the parties is over domestic violence. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.1 were married on 05.05.2009. Respondent No.2 is the son born out of the said wedlock. Due to matrimonial disputes, they are residing separately. Both of them are working as teachers. By way of defence petitioners have raised a plea that Respondent No.1 is having extra marital relations with one Mr. Sanjay Dalvi and he claims that the conversation between Respondent No.1 and her paramour has been recorded in cellphone through memory card and being converted into compact disc. The memory card and the compact disc are produced on record and marked as Article 1 and Article 2.

4. A forensic report is secured by the petitioners which is at Exhibit 96. A certificate under Section 65(B) of evidence act was issued on 18.12.2017 which was marked as Exhibit-106. The transcript of the conversation was produced by the petitioners on record which is marked as Exhibit-109. Petitioners examined witness No.3/Mr.Nilesh Ralebhat who issued Exhibit-96.

5. Petitioners submitted application Exhibit-107 for direction to verify the contents of compact disc and the transcript. It was allowed by order dated 07.02.2018. Respondents had challenged that order in Criminal Writ Petition No.354 of 2018 but it was dismissed on 24.06.2019.

6. Petitioners submitted application Exhibit-114 for directing the Respondent No.1 to provide her specimen voice sample for verification and identification to be done by authorized forensic laboratory. The said application was contested by the Respondents. By impugned order it was rejected. Hence, the parties are before this Court.

7. Learned Counsel Mr. Nikhil Ghanwat appearing for the petitioners submits that during the course of arguments petitioners learnt that Respondent No.1 has denied her voice recorded in the compact disc and that necessitated them to file application Exhibit-114 which should not have been rejected. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 is bound to provide voice sample and to buttress the submission reliance is placed on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the matter of Jil w/o. Priyanka Choksi vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2024 ALL MR(Cri) 128, Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in AIR 2019 SC 3592 and M/s. Janchaitanya Housing Ltd., Ameerpet vs. M/s. Divya Financiers reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353. It is vehemently submitted that the provisions of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India would not be an impediment for compelling a party to give her voice sample in the proceedings of domestic violence. It is further submitted that the proceedings under the domestic violence act are quasi civil in nature and Court has ample power to compel a party to give voice sample. It is contended that compact disc and memory card are proved by Exhibit-96, 106 and 109 and the deposition of Mr. Nilesh Ralebhat.

8. Per contra, Learned Counsel Mr.Mukul Kulkarni for Respondents would resist the petition on the basis of affidavit-in-reply. It is submitted that the application Exhibit-114 was moved belatedly. The intention of the petitioners is to protract the proceedings. It is further submitted that the compact disc and memory card have