ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed seeking the Court to quash the order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.256 of 2024 in Crime No.42 of 2024 by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the prosecution case involves a rape allegation against the petitioner, a former Sub- Inspector of Police, by a Woman Head Constable. The victim alleged that on June 15, 2024, petitioner trespassed into her room, threatened her with a revolver, beat her, and committed rape. The case was registered under Sections 449, 376(2)(a)(b), 324, and 506 of the IPC. The prosecution requested the Court to issue summons for petitioner’s appearance at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Hyderabad for a DNA test. In response, counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court filed a counter, denying the allegations and arguing that obtaining his blood samples for DNA testing would violate his rights against self-incrimination and Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the trial Court ruled in favor of the prosecution, citing Section 53-A of the Cr.P.C, which empowers medical practitioners to collect DNA samples from the accused. The trial Court also referenced the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Selvi vs. State of Karnataka, [AIR 2010 SC 1974], which held that DNA sampling doesn't face constitutional hurdles in India. The trial Court allowed the petition, issuing summons for appearance of the petitioner at the FSL for DNA testing and comparison. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed.

3. Heard Sri G. S. Prasen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated November 29, 2024, passed in Crl.M.P.No.256 of 2024, by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-II Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, is wholly illegal and devoid of merits and that the trial Court failed to adequately address key legal and factual issues, including the protection against self- incrimination under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution, the right to privacy under Article 21, and the lack of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged crime. He further submitted that the order for DNA profiling violates the constitutional rights of the petitioner and that the trial Court failed to provide a clear justification for why DNA testing is essential to the case of the prosecution. He contended that the trial Court overlooked the suspicious delay in the registration of the FIR and the alleged collection of evidence, which casts serious doubt on the credibility of the complaint. He relies on the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, emphasizing that any process of criminal law initiated with mala fide intentions or abuse of process of law cannot be continued and deserves to be quashed. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner by allowing this criminal petition.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that there is no illegality in the order of the trial Court. He argued that merely collecting the samples does not prejudice the accused, as he will have the opportunity to challenge the evidence during the examination of witnesses. Considering that the alleged offence is heinous and grievous, scientific evidence must be collected. It is a settled law that the accused can be directed to provide samples, and this does not amount to self-

incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, he prayed to the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.

6. In light of the submissions made by both learned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is observe