RAJBIR SEHRAWAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No. 97 dated 8.3.1996 registered under Sections 420, 332, 353, 186, 506 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, copy annexure P3 and the order framing charge, copy Annexure P4 as also the charge sheet framed against the petitioner vide copy Annexure P-5.

(2.) IT has been alleged that the petitioner, Rajbir Sehrawat was blessed with a daughter on 27.3.1993. Information regarding the birth of the daughter could not be furnished to the Registrar, Births and Deaths within the prescribed period. The petitioner, however, sent a letter dated 19.1.1996 and furnished information regarding the birth of the daughter in his family. A copy of the letter has been placed on record as Annexure P1. The letter was accompanied by other requisite documents including a certificate of the Staff Nurse who attended the birth of the child (copy Annexure P2). It has been contended that the information given by the petitioner vide Annexure P1 was to be forwarded to the Magistrate, Ist Class i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate, by the District Registrar unless he found the information to be frivolous. The Sub Registrar of the area, however, did not put the information to the District Registrar to the effect that the application given by the petitioner was frivolous. At the same time the said information was not forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for ascertaining the correctness of the information. It is alleged that the Sub Registrar got FIR registered against the petitioner by moving the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police, copy of the FIR is annexed as Annexure P3. It has also been contended that there was no document before the Sub Registrar to come to the conclusion that the birth of the child had not taken place on 27.3.1993 and that the Sub Registrar was not competent to look into this aspect. The petitioner, it is alleged, is a practising Lawyer and he could not have behaved in the manner as alleged in the impugned FIR. On the other hand, it was the Sub Registrar who misbehaved with the petitioner by using objectionable language. The petitioner has filed a criminal complaint against the Sub Registrar and she has been summoned by the Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rohtak proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner under Sections 511, 332, 353 and 186 IPC and the charge sheet framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class showed that the learned Magistrate converted the Section 420 into Section 511 IPC and dropped the charge under Section 506 IPC. The FIR and the order framing the charge beyond charge sheet are challenged on the ground, inter alia, that the authorities were bound to act under the Registration of Births Act as per the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules which was a special enactment. It was further contended that giving false information is an offence punishable under the Registration of Births Act and as such this matter could not be brought under Section 420, 511 IPC. The general law has to give way to the special law.

(3.) NOTICE was issued to the respondent, State of Haryana on whose behalf reply was filed by the Sub Inspector, Station House Officer, Police Civil Lines, Rohtak. It was not disputed that as per the Rules the Sub Registrar was not competent to look into the truthfulness of the alleged birth. The application of the petitioner was required to be forwarded to the Magistrate for enquiring into the birth. The recording of the FIR, Annexure P3, was admitted. It was contended that the respondent possibly cannot have any objection in following the procedure prescribed by law at any time. The police sent the challan to the Illaqa Magistrate against the petitioner under Sections 420, 332, 353, 186 and 506 IPC on the basis of earlier registration of a birth. Thereafter the charges were framed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Rohtak under Sections 511, 186, 332, 353 IPC.