Court rejects plea for FIR against BCCI President Mithun Manhas over age fraud charge
New Delhi, Nov 7 (IANS/WISHAVWARTA) The Special Railway Magistrate in Jammu has dismissed an application seeking registration of an FIR against Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) President Mithun Manhas over allegations that he forged his date of birth to gain an edge in age-group cricket.
In August this year, a plea was filed by Sudershan Mehta, a retired senior Deputy Superintendent of Police and former joint honorary secretary of the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA), under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Mehta had accused Manhas of fraud, cheating and forgery, claiming the former Delhi batter had used two different dates of birth to secure selection in national sub-junior and junior tournaments under the JKCA and the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA).
Citing an email from the Maharaja Hari Singh Agriculture Collegiate (MHAC) School, Nagbani, the complainant said the school’s records put Manhas’s date of birth as December 9, 1977, while the DDCA website listed it as October 12, 1979. He said his earlier complaints to the Nowabad police station and SP City North, Jammu, had not been acted upon, prompting him to approach the court.
The court of Sub-Judge and Special Railway Magistrate, Jammu, Sandeep Singh Sen, then sought a factual report from the Station House Officer (SHO) of Nowabad police station.
The police inquiry concluded that the allegations of forgery and fabrication could not be substantiated. It found that Manhas’s date of birth was uniformly recorded as September 12, 1977, across his CBSE mark sheet, PAN card, Aadhaar card and the records of his employer, ONGC.
The report further stated that no undue advantage in junior cricket had been shown to have accrued to Manhas on account of the alleged discrepancy, and that he had not been granted any privilege or concession by cricket bodies on the basis of his date of birth.
In its order, the court noted that the complainant had largely relied on a photocopy of information downloaded from the DDCA website, and had not produced any original or authenticated document from the association showing that Manhas had submitted a fabricated certificate or made a false declaration.
“It is important to mention that mere discrepancy in two entries, without anything more, cannot ipso facto lead to an inference of forgery or fabrication,” the court observed, adding that criminal law relating to forgery required material showing the making of a false document along with dishonest or fraudulent intent.
The court further said such website material could at best raise a question requiring verification by the association concerned, and could not be treated as conclusive proof of age or of any act of forgery.
It also underlined that the power to direct investigation at the pre-cognisance stage was not meant to be invoked to settle personal grievances on the basis of unverified assumptions and conjectures.
Holding that no prima facie material had been brought on record to show that Manhas had forged any document or knowingly made a false representation to obtain an unlawful advantage, the court dismissed the application as ‘devoid of sufficient merit.’
