JUDGMENT : 1. By order dated 09.05.2018 notices were directed to be issued upon the O.P.no.2. Pursuant thereto, the O.P.No.2 has appeared through Vakalatnama on 28.03.2022 and inspite of repeated call nobody responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and the matter was adjourned with a view to provide one more opportunity to the O.P.No.2. On 13.06.2022, on the ground of arguing counsel being out of station, time was taken on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 2. Today, when the matter was taken up on repeated call, nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2 and the Court tried to call the counsel for the O.P.No.2 by way of displaying the name of the counsel for the O.P.No.2 in the Display Board and inspite of that nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 3. It appears that the O.P.No.2 has lost interest in the matter and that is why the matter has been heard on merit. 4. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Karmakar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajnish Vardhan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State. 5. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2016 in connection with MGM P.S.Case No.0049 of 2016 arising out of G.R.(POCSO) No.1530 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur. 6. In the First Information Report filed by the O.P.No.2 in which it has been alleged that the informant works as Mason and resides at Baliguma, Mango, alongwith his wife and children. One day in the month of March, 2016, when he returned his home he found that his middle daughter namely Rani Ghora, aged about 13-14 years was weeping, when he inquired she disclosed that one Sanjay Prasad son of Om Prakash Prasad has forcibly committed rape upon her on threat. She further disclosed that in the year 2015 during Rakhi Purnima, while she had gone to the grocery shop of Sanjay Prasad, then the said Sanjay Prasad forcibly took her behind the shop and after bolting the shop he committed rape upon her by gagging her mouth with cloth. The accused had threatened her that if she disclosed that matter then her family members would be killed. She got scared and did not disclose the occurrence. Thereafter the accused committed rape upon her several times. The accused had threatened her that if she disclosed that matter then her family members would be killed. She got scared and did not disclose the occurrence. Thereafter the accused committed rape upon her several times. Informant immediately took his daughter to doctor where on examination the doctor disclosed that his daughter has got pregnant. On 26.03.2016 informant along with his other persons went to the house of Sanjay Prasad where he admitted his guilt and promised that he is ready to marry her. On 29.03.2016, the accused married his daughter, but he is refusing to get responsibility of his daughter and hence this case.” 7. Mr. Karmakar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed the complaint against the accused persons as Complaint Case No.849 of 2016 which was sent for registration of FIR under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. which was numbered as MGM P.S.Case No.43 of 2016, G.R. No.1462 of 2016, F.R.T. has been submitted and on protest petition cognizance has been taken. 8. He submits that thereafter the present case has been filed against this petitioner by the O.P.No.2 and police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet whereby the petitioner has been sent up for trial. He further submits that on the application of the wife of the petitioner, namely, Poonam Prasad and on the direction of the Director General of Police the DNA test was conducted wherein it was found that this petitioner is not the biological father of the victim’s child and without considering the DNA test report the police has submitted that charge sheet and thereafter the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. 9. Mr. Vardhan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the cognizance order. 10. The Court has perused the documents available on the record and in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent State it appears that it is an admitted fact that this petitioner has filed the complaint case against the O.P.No.2 and others which was numbered as Complaint Case No.849/2016 which was sent to the police for registration of FIR and on the protest petition of the petitioner, cognizance has been taken against the accused persons in that case. It is an admitted fact that wife of the petitioner namely Poonam Prasad filed a petition before the Director General of Police (Jharkhand) on 08.6.2016 and the Sr.S.P., Jamshedpur and pursuant thereto, the direction was issued for DNA Test of the petitioner. The DNA test is on the record which suggest that the petitioner is not biological father of the victim’s child. Without considering the DNA test the police has submitted the Charge Sheet No.178/2016 dated 20.08.2016 against the petitioner, thereafter, the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner. The DNA test and the other sections of Evidence Act was the subject matter in the case of “Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik and Another”, (2014) 2 SCC 576 , paragraph nos.13,17 and 19 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “13. Before we proceed to consider the rival submissions, we deem it necessary to understand what exactly DNA test is and ultimately its accuracy. All living beings are composed of cells which are the smallest and basic unit of life. An average human body has trillions of cells of different sizes. DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid), which is found in the chromosomes of the cells of living beings, is the blueprint of an individual. Human cells contain 46 chromosomes and those 46 chromosomes contain a total of six billion base pairs in 46 duplex threads of DNA. DNA consists of four nitrogenous bases — adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine and phosphoric acid arranged in a regular structure. When two unrelated people possessing the same DNA pattern have been compared, the chances of complete similarity are 1 in 30 billion to 300 billion. Given that the Earth’s population is about 5 billion, this test shall have accurate result. It has been recognised by this Court in Kamti Devi that the result of a genuine DNA test is scientifically accurate. It is nobody’s case that the result of the DNA test is not genuine and, therefore, we have to proceed on an assumption that the result of the DNA test is accurate. The DNA test reports show that the appellant is not the biological father of the girl child. 17. We may remember that Section 112 of the Evidence Act was enacted at a time when the modern scientific advancement and DNA test were not even in contemplation of the legislature. The result of DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. The DNA test reports show that the appellant is not the biological father of the girl child. 17. We may remember that Section 112 of the Evidence Act was enacted at a time when the modern scientific advancement and DNA test were not even in contemplation of the legislature. The result of DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. Although Section 112 raises a presumption of conclusive proof on satisfaction of the conditions enumerated therein but the same is rebuttable. The presumption may afford legitimate means of arriving at an affirmative legal conclusion. While the truth or fact is known, in our opinion, there is no need or room for any presumption. Where there is evidence to the contrary, the presumption is rebuttable and must yield to proof. The interest of justice is best served by ascertaining the truth and the court should be furnished with the best available science and may not be left to bank upon presumptions, unless science has no answer to the facts in issue. In our opinion, when there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former. 19. The husband’s plea that he had no access to the wife when the child was begotten stands proved by the DNA test report and in the face of it, we cannot compel the appellant to bear the fatherhood of a child, when the scientific reports prove to the contrary. We are conscious that an innocent child may not be bastardised as the marriage between her mother and father was subsisting at the time of her birth, but in view of the DNA test reports and what we have observed above, we cannot forestall the consequence. It is denying the truth. “Truth must triumph” is the hallmark of justice.” 11. Admittedly, the victim was a minor and this Court is conscious of the fact that the culprit be not allowed to roam in the society free, but, in view of the DNA test report, the truth must prevail and the DNA test report suggest that this petitioner is not biological father of the victim’s child. Admittedly, the victim was a minor and this Court is conscious of the fact that the culprit be not allowed to roam in the society free, but, in view of the DNA test report, the truth must prevail and the DNA test report suggest that this petitioner is not biological father of the victim’s child. In this case, charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and thereafter the learned court has taken cognizance by order dated 19.12.2016 and the DNA test report is at Annexure-4. The learned court has not considered the DNA test report in the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2016 and the learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioner under section 376, 506 of the IPC and section 4/8 of POCSO Act, 2012 inspite of the DNA test report in favour of the petitioner which is not disclosed in the cognizance order. 12. In view of the above facts, reasons and the analysis, the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 19.12.2016 in connection with MGM P.S.Case No.0049 of 2016 arising out of G.R.(POCSO) No.1530 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur is quashed. 13. Cr.M.P.No.3049 of 2017 stands allowed and disposed of. I.A. if any also stands disposed of.