Punjab & Haryana HC holds Birth Certificate to be prima facie false and fabricated as name of biological father was not mentioned therein

Read Order: Pushpinder Kaur v. State of Punjab 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, March 11, 2022: While dealing with an anticipatory bail plea, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has opined that a Birth Certificate issued has to reflect the position which existed at the time of birth even in case it is subsequently prepared/issued. 

The Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl also added,“The fact that in the Birth Certificate, the name of biological father has not been mentioned, prima facie shows that the said Certificate is a false and fabricated document.”

In this case, prayer was for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR registered under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 473, 120-B of the IPC. The FIR, in the present case, was registered on the complaint of Gurmohan Singh, who levelled allegations against three persons i.e. the petitioner, Sunita and Inderjeet Singh with respect to forgery and fabrication of certain documents.

It was alleged that the said complainant-Gurmohan Singh got a registered GPA in his favour from Raj Joginder Kaur wife of Palminder Singh, Pawanjit Singh Johal and Gurinder Singh Johal (sons of Palminder Singh), who were all stated to be residents of England. It was further alleged that in the revenue record, there was a mutation entry which was entered in the name of Raj Joginder Kaur, Pawanjit Singh Johal and Gurinder Singh Johal with respect to a property situated in Jalandhar. It was also stated that earlier, they committed theft of documents and other items from the property regarding which, FIR was registered under Sections 148/380/34 of the IPC against Sunita and Inderjeet Singh @ Boney and while applying for the concession of anticipatory bail in the said case, a copy of Birth Certificate, Aadhaar Card, Passport and the Voter’s Identity Card, including that of the petitioner, were produced.

It was alleged that the said documents were forged and fabricated and that the present petitioner was not the daughter of Palminder Singh and was the daughter of Sunita and one Gurmeet Singh. 

In the order rejecting the bail application of the petitioner, it was found that as per the police record, the stamp and signatures of the Municipal Councillor were forged and fabricated in order to prepare the documents for the purpose of issuing the false Birth Certificate in which, the name of the father of the petitioner was stated to be Palminder Singh whereas, as per the case of the petitioner, she was, at best, the adopted daughter of Palminder Singh. 

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the signatures and stamp of the said Municipal Councillors which were put on the false birth certificate were not compared with any document. The Counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that a civil litigation was pending between the Punjab Wakf Board and one Preet Kaur with respect to the property in question, in which, the petitioner’s mother moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, which was dismissed and in respect of which the Punjab Wakf Board subsequently filed a contempt petition against the petitioner’s mother. 

The Counsel then submitted that after the mother and the brother of the petitioner were granted bail in another FIR, the FIR in the present case was registered to implicate the entire family including the present petitioner.

After considering the rival submissions, on the petitioner’s claim of adoption, the Court opined that neither any document with respect to the said adoption was produced nor any date of said adoption was forthcoming from the petitioner. Further, on the birth certificate presented, the Court opined that on the certificate, the father’s name was stated to be Palminder Singh.

The Court opined that the Birth Certificate issued has to reflect the position which existed at the time of birth even in case it is subsequently prepared/issued. On the factual situation, the Court noted that the petitioner and her family members manipulated several documents in order to procure the said Birth Certificate. The Court also considered an affidavit by the mother of the petitioner by which the petitioner’s claim of being an adopted child was contradicted. 

The Court also noted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was also required in order to recover the said seal and also to find out as to who were the persons who were involved in the commission of the offences, by virtue of which, the petitioner along with her family members, managed to procure the said Birth Certificate and other documents by submitting forged documents which were neither a part of the record of the Tehsildar nor were stated to be signed/stamped by the concerned authority. 

Next, on the registration of the second FIR, the Court opined that the same was legal and in accordance with law as the offences disclosed in the two FIRs were different. 

In the present case, it was the allegation against the present petitioner that documents that purportedly had the seal and signature of Tarsem Singh, Municipal Councillor, did not actually bear the seal and signature of the said Tarsem Singh. Even the statement of Tarsem Singh under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., had been recorded to the said effect. The said document bearing the counterfeit seal and the forged signature of Tarsem Singh had been used by the petitioner and her family members for getting a birth certificate and other documents prepared in her favour.

In this document, it was falsely stated that the petitioner was the (natural) daughter of Palminder Singh, which was even contrary to the version of the petitioner in the present petition to the effect that the petitioner was the adopted daughter of Palminder Singh. Moreover, the Tehsildar recommendation dated November 26, 2013, which had been prepared through the Petitioner and her family members was also not found to be a part of the record of the Tehsildar, which also prima facie, showed that the said recommendation had been forged and fabricated. 

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner was dismissed.