Back
1 W.A.No. 120/2021
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DIVISION BENCH
PRESENT
SHEEL NAGU & ANAND PATHAK, JJ.
( WRIT APPEAL NO. 120/2021)
Kallu Khan
Versus
State of M.P. & Ors..
==============================================
Shri H.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri D.D.Bansal, learned GA for respondents No. 1 to 4/State.
==============================================
Whether approved for reporting : Yes
Law laid down:-
(i)
As per Section 13 (3) of Registration of
Births and Deaths Act, 1969, only Judicial
Magistrate First Class has the authority to verify
the correctness of delayed registration of births
and deaths which have not been registered within
one year of its occurrence. Executive Magistrate
has no authority to verify cases of delayed
registration of births and deaths as per Section 13
(3) of Act of 1969.
(ii)
Section 30 of Act of 1969 give power to State
Government to make rules as specified into the
2 W.A.No. 120/2021
said provision but it does not give any authority in
respect of Section 13 (3) of the Act of 1969, in
specific terms, therefore, Rule 9 of M.P.
Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999
exceeds the mandate of Section 30 of Act of 1969
and thus, goes contrary to legislative intent.
Therefore, Rule 9 deserves to be struck down /
read down.
(iii) Section 20 of the General Clauses Act 1897
and Section 3(4) of Cr.P.C. relied and discussed.
------------------------------xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx--------------------------
J U D G M E N T
(Passed on this 11th Day of February, 2022)
Anand 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
3 W.A.No. 120/2021
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
accordi
