New Delhi, November 7, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
A Special Railway Magistrate court 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 advantage in age-group cricket.
The application was filed in August 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 alleged that Manhas 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 Maharaja Hari Singh Agriculture Collegiate (MHAC) School, Nagbani, he claimed the school records showed Manhas’s date of birth as December 9, 1977, while the DDCA website listed it as October 12, 1979.
After Mehta said his earlier complaints to Nowabad police station and SP City North, Jammu, had not been acted upon, he approached the court. Sub-Judge and Special Railway Magistrate Sandeep Singh Sen sought a factual report from the Nowabad SHO.
The police inquiry found that the allegations of forgery and fabrication could not be substantiated. According to the report, Manhas’s date of birth was consistently recorded as September 12, 1977, in his CBSE mark sheet, PAN card, Aadhaar card and records of his employer, ONGC.
The inquiry also found no evidence that Manhas had received any undue advantage in junior cricket or any privilege or concession from cricket bodies on the basis of his date of birth.
In its order, the court noted that the complainant had mainly 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. It added that a forgery allegation required material showing the creation of a false document along with dishonest or fraudulent intent.
The court said website material could at best raise a question requiring verification by the concerned association and could not be treated as conclusive proof of age or forgery. It also observed that the power to order an investigation at the pre-cognisance stage was not intended to settle personal grievances based on unverified assumptions.
Finding no prima facie material to show that Manhas had forged a document or knowingly made a false representation to obtain an unlawful advantage, the court dismissed the application as “devoid of sufficient merit.”
FOLLOW NOW
