Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sheel Nagu and Anand Pathak, JJ.
Kallu Khan v. State of M.P. & Others
Writ Appeal No. 120 of 2021 (Gwalior): against the order dated 29.1.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 1714/2020; Decided on 11.2.2022
(1) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 -- Ss. 13 (3) and 30 (f) -- delayed registration of births and deaths -- S. 13(3) gives authority to Magistrate of First Class (or a Presidency Magistrate) to exercise authority for delayed registration -- no where gives any authority to Executive Magistrate -- correctness of birth or death is to be made after due verification by JMFC by way of judicial proceeding. (1976) 1 SCC 496 followed. (1835-99) All ER 239 (HL), (1959) 3 All ER 1 and Principles of Statutory Interpretation (10th Edition) by Jus. G.P. Singh relied on. AIR 1989 Ori. 56, 1995 Cri. L.J. 2820 and AIR 1998 Guj. 42 referred to. [Para 28]
(2) Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 -- Ss. 30 and 13 (3) -- M.P. Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 -- R. 9 -- General Clauses Act, 1897 -- S. 20 -- Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 3 (4)-inclusion of Executive Magistrate in R.9 -- State Government could nothave framed Rules contrary to directions contained in S. 30 of Act of 1969 -- Rules of 1999 cannot go beyond what is prescribed instatute itself -- inclusion of Executive Magistrate in R. 9struck down/read down to extent that delayed registration of births and deaths can only beverified before JMFC of concerned jurisdiction -- Executive Magistrates shall not entertain any application u/s. 13 (3) of Act of 1969 for authenticity of delayed registration of births and deathsbeyond one year of its occurrence. [Paras 30, 37, 38, 41 and 44]
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 -- S. 13 (3) -- M.P. Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 -- R. 9 -- writ of habeas corpus -- age of corpus -- summary enquiry by Tahsildar -- is non est in eyes of law -- Chief Municipal Officer, in capacity of Executive Magistrate, issued birth certificate on basis of directions given by Tahsildar -- said birth certificate quashed -- would not be treated asvalid birth certificate in eyes of law. [Para 39]
(4) Age -- birth certificate -- delayedregistration of birth -- summaryenquiry by Tahsildar -- is non est in eyes of law -- birth certificate issued by Chief Municipal Officeron basis of directions given by Tahsildar -- not valid birth certificate in eyes of law. [Para 39]
¼1½ tUe vkSj e`R;q jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 & /kkjk 13¼3½ rFkk 30¼p½ & tUe vkSj e`R;q dk foyac ls jftLVªhdj.k & /kkjk 13¼3½ esa ÁFke Js.kh ds eftLVªsV ¼vFkok ÁsflMsUlh eftLVªsV½ dks foyac ls jftLVªhdj.k ds fy, Ákfèkdkj Á;qDr djus dk Ákf/kdkj fn;k x;k gS & dgha Hkh dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV dks dksbZ Ákf/kdkj ugha fn;k x;k & tUe ;k e`R;q dh 'kqf) U;kf;d eftLVªsV ÁFke Js.kh }kjk U;kf;d dk;Zokgh ds ek/;e ls lE;d~ lR;kiu ds mijkar dh tkuk gksrh gSA ¼1976½ 1 ,l lh lh 496 vuqlfjrA ¼1835&99½ vkWy bZ vkj 239 ¼,p ,y½] ¼1959½ 3 vkWy bZ vkj 1 rFkk U;kŒ thŒihŒ flag Ñr fÁfUliy vkWQ LVSP;wVjh baVjfÁVs'ku ¼10oka laLdj.k½ voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1989 mM+hlk 56] 1995 lhvkj ,y ts 2820 rFkk , vkb vkj 1998 xqtŒ 42 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 28½
¼2½ tUe vkSj e`R;q jftLVªhdj.k vf/kfu;e] 1969 & /kkjk 30 rFkk 13¼3½ & eŒÁŒ tUe vkSj e`R;q jftLVªhdj.k fu;e] 1999 & fuŒ 9 & lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e] 1897 & /kkjk 20 & naM ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 3¼4½ & fuŒ 9 esa dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV dk lekos'ku & jkT; ljdkj }kjk lu~ 1969 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 30 esa varfoZ"V funs'kksa ds Áfrdwy fu;e fojfpr ugha fd, tk ldrs & lu~ 1999 ds fu;e mlls ijs ugha tk ldrs tks Lo;a dkuwu esa fofgr gS & fuŒ 9 esa dk;Z ikyd eftLVªsV dk lekos'k bl lhek rd vfHk[kafMr@viBuh; fd foyac ls tUe vkSj e`R;q dk jftLVªhdj.k lacaf/kr vf/kdkfjrk okys U;kf;d eftLVªsV ÁFke Js.kh ds le{k gh lR;kfir fd;k tk ldrk gS & tUe ;k e`R;q gksus ds ,d o"kZ ds i'pkr~ foyac ls tUe vkSj e`R;q ds jftLVªhdj.k ds Áek.khdj.k ds fy, lu~ 1969 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13¼3½ ds v/khu vkosnu dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV xzg.k ugha djsaxsA ¼iSjk 30] 37] 38] 41 ,oa 44½
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & tUe vkSj e`R;q jftLVªhdj.k vfèkfu;e] 1969 & 13¼3½ & eŒÁŒ tUe vkSj e`R;q jftLVªhdj.k fu;e] 1999 & fuŒ 9 & canh ÁR;{khdj.k fjV & dkWiZl dh o; & rglhynkj }kjk laf{kIr tkap & fof/k dh n`f"V esa ukfLr & eq[; uxjikfydk vf/kdkjh us] dk;Zikyd eftLVªsV dh gSfl;r ls] rglhynkj }kjk fn, x, funs'kksa ds vk/kkj ij tUe Áek.ki= tkjh fd;k & mDr tUe Áek.ki= vfHk[kafMr & fof/k dh n`f"V esa fof/kekU; tUe Áek.ki= ugha ekuk tk,xkA ¼iSjk 39½
¼4½ o; & tUe Áek.ki= & tUe dk foyac ls jftLVªhdj.k & rglhynkj }kjk laf{kIr tkap & fof/k dh n`f"V esa ukfLr & rglhynkj }kjk fn, x, funs'kksa ds vk/kkj ij eq[; uxjikfydk vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh tUe Áek.k i= & fof/k dh n`f"V esa fof/kekU; tUe Áek.ki= ughaA ¼iSjk 39½
JUDGMENT
Pathak, J. -- 1. Instant writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/petitioner under section 2 (1) of Madhya Prades Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 taking exception to order dated 29/1/2020 passed by learned writ Court in W.P.No. 1714/2020; whereby, petition (habeas corpus petition) preferred by appellant/petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that appellant as petitioner preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India vide W.P.NO. 24982/2019 in the nature of Habeas Corpus with the allegations that corpus-Tamanna(sister of petitioner), a minor girl aged 16 years being kidnapped by respondents No. 5 to 8. Later on, corpus was produced by police and she expressed her willingness to live with her parents and accordingly her statement was recorded before the Principal Registrar of this Court and she was released to live at her maternal home. Police registered a case vide Crime No. 381/2019 for offence under section 376 of IPC and section 3/ 4 of POCSO Act and charge-sheet was filed against accused persons and trial was pending at the relevant point of time.
3. It is further alleged that on 1.12.2019, respondent No. 5 again kidnapped the corpus, therefore, fresh complaint was lodged. Since police refused to take any action on the said complaint, therefore, complaints were made to higher Police Authorities and thereafter, instant writ petition (Habeas Corpus) was filed.
4. Meanwhile, Police produced the corpus again before the Court and she made a statement that she is Major and entered into wedlock with respondent No. 5-Chhotu S/o Harnarayan on her own volition and she expressed her desire to live with her husband at her matrimonial house. Learned writ Court directed her to write down her statement for which she expressed her inability to write down. Accordingly, with the direction of this Court, SHO, Police Station Dehat, District Bhind wrote the statement of corpus, which was signed by corpus as well as Constable Amrita, who brought her to the Court.
5. Main contention of petitioner was the age of corpus as according to him, date of birth of corpus is 2.5.2003, therefore, according to him, she was minor when she was allegedly abducted. It was his submission that corpus studied in Govt. Shastri Primary School, Mau, District Bhind in which her date of birth is referred as 2.5.2003. However, corpus opposed the said contention on the basis of fact that she never studied in said school; in fact, she studied in Madarsa (enjlk ) and her parents have created forged mark-sheet of govt. Shastri Primary School, Mau, District Bhind for age purpose..
6. Father of petitioner Aaseen Khan lodged the FIR on 11.6.2019 when she eloped for the first time and same was registered vide crime No. 381/2019 in which he referred the age of his daughter as 17 years 11 months. Said fact appeared to be correct as stated before the writ Court because in the school leaving certificate as well as mark-sheet of Class VII, certificate of Saraswati Bal Vidhya Mandir dated 16/6/2012 (as provided later by Madarsa Islamiya School, Mau) refers the date of birth of corpus as 6/7/2001 and therefore, father rightly referred the age of corpus as 17 years 11 months and on 1/12/2019, she was major.
7. Learned writ Court came to the conclusion that earlier, Father of corpus lodged FIR and filed writ petition, now Brother of corpus has filed the writ petition while showing date of birth other than as mentioned in previous FIR (in which father of appellant/petitioner referred the age of his daughter as 17 years 11 months), resultantly, learned writ Court found the corpus to be Major as her correct date of birth was found to be 6.7.2001 and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
8. Being aggrieved by the said order of writ Court, appellant/petitioner preferred instant writ appeal on the ground that correct date of birth of corpus is 2.5.2003 and in support of his submissions,
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of the Magistrate under Section 13(3) of the RBD Act is limited to verification of the correctness of the claim regarding the occurr....
The central legal point established is that the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, particularly Section 13(3), applies to past cases of unregistered births, and a restrictive interpretation....
The court emphasized that a Lok Adalat cannot consider a unilateral memo and must ensure that proper procedures are followed, including consent from both parties and conducting inquiries.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
