ORDER :

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, Women’s 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 Hon’ble 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.

4. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

5. Now, in deciding the revision lis on the correctness of the impugned order of the Court below, the factual background necessary to mention, in nutshell, is that the defacto-complainant – Smt. Ahalya Meka, w/o. Naveen Krishna Bothireddy (A.1) has submitted a report against petitioner A.1, among 4 accused viz., A.2 - Raghava Bothireddy (father of A.1); A.3 – Smt. Anuradha Bothireddy (Mother of A.1); and A.4 – Smt. Haritha Bothireddy (Sister of A.1), which was registered as Crime No.217 of 2016 of Women Police Station, DD, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 420, 344, 120-B r/w. Section 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, stating that her marriage with A. 1 - Naveen Krishna B