Kasturi Lal vs State of Haryana

J.B. Garg, J.

Kasturi Lal son of Gian Chand, tailor who retired from H.A.P. 1st Batallion, Ambala has moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging FIR No. 154 registered on 1.9.1993 at Police Station, Baldev Nagar, Ambala City for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner joined the Haryana Armed Police as a tailor in the year 1967. He did not possess any certificate regarding his date of birth and he described his age as 40 at the time he joined the aforesaid service and that he was to retire in June, 1987 after completing the age of 60; that he continued to work and on 25.5.1988 he filed an affidavit in the Department mentioning his date of birth as 15.4.1939; that all of a sudden the petitioner was retired on 31.8.1993 and on 1.9.1993 the present FIR was registered alleging that by placing a false affidavit regarding his date of birth he manipulated to continue in service even beyond the age of 60 years.

While challenging this FIR it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he wanted voluntary retirement and his application in this regard was rejected on 28.1.1992 (Annexure P4). The petitioner was retired with effect from 31.8.1993 mentioning that he was 40 years old on 7.1.1967 which was the date of his recruitment. It has further been stressed that every employee has a right to get his date of birth corrected and no offence was committed by the petitioner, that once a request for his voluntary retirement was declined there was no justification for launching prosecution against the petitioner and that too after a lapse of five years.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has pointed out that in connivance with the members of the staff the petitioner got his date of birth changed and when this fact came to notice he wanted a kind of premature retirement but that proposal was not acceded to and the official record has been tampered with. On behalf of the respondent it was also argued that since the petitioner received benefit of a fabricated date of retirement till 31.8.1993 it could not be said that registration of the case on 1.9.1993 was barred by time. Since the investigation is stated to be complete there appears to be no good ground for interference and the present petition moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby dismissed.