Complaint over date of birth controversy against BCCI President Mithun Manhas dismissed

According to a report by Sportstar, Jammu's Special Railway Magistrate Court has dismissed an application seeking directions to register an FIR regarding allegations of discrepancies and alleged tampering in the date of birth records of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) President Mithun Manhas. This order was pronounced on 6 November 2026 by Sandeep Singh Sen, KCS (Judicial), Special Railway Magistrate, Jammu. The application was filed by Sudarshan Mehta, former honorary secretary of the Jammu and Kashmir Cricket Association (JKCA), under Section 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, making allegations of cheating and forgery in connection with Mithun Manhas's date of birth.

While examining the complaint, supporting documents, and the police inquiry report submitted by the Station House Officer of Nowabad police station, the court observed that there was no prima facie material to warrant registering an FIR against Manhas. According to the inquiry report, Manhas's date of birth has been consistently recorded as 12 September 1977 across his official documents, including educational records, PAN card, Aadhaar card, and employment records. The court observed that the complainant heavily relied upon a photocopy of information allegedly obtained from the website of the Delhi and Districts Cricket Association (DDCA), which was insufficient to establish that Manhas had submitted any forged document or made a false declaration before the association.

The order further observed that a mere discrepancy between two entries, without independent evidence of forgery, fabrication, or fraudulent intent, cannot in itself constitute a criminal offense. The court also noted that the complainant failed to place any material on record to show that Manhas had forged documents or knowingly made a false representation with the intention of securing illegal benefits in cricket.

While dismissing the application lacking sufficient merit, the court clarified that the complainant may approach the appropriate authority, the DDCA, for verification of its records and take action in accordance with law if warranted. Legal due process was followed throughout the proceedings in this matter, and the court finally issued this order after verifying all the facts.