DEVENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) The applicant by means of this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the order dated 24.8.2013 passed by the A. C. J. M.-Ist, Budaun in Case Crime No. 250/13, under Sections-376/34 IPC, P. S.-Bisauli, district-Budaun by which he has rejected the application dated 24.8.2013 moved by the applicant before him with a prayer to direct the Investigating Officer to collect the D. N. A. of the prosecutrix, Rajeshwari Devi from her clothes and get the same compared with that of the applicant's semen for determining the veracity of the allegations made by the prosecutrix against the applicant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C..

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the court below has rejected the applicant's prayer upon an erroneous presumption that it had no jurisdiction to grant the prayer made by the applicant in the application dated 24.8.2013. He further submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2008 2 SCC 409 has held that the magistrate has incidental / implied powers under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. Chapter-XII to direct / monitor the police investigation for ensuring proper investigation. He further submitted that the court below has rejected the application of the applicant for comparison of the D. N. A. of the prosecutrix, Rajeshwari Devi and the applicant's semen without considering the settled law on the issue.