Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Sd/-"

A perusal of the above would show that in fact, the petitioner and her family members have manipulated several documents in order to procure the said Birth Certificate. It is not in dispute that certain other documents, which were submitted for the purpose of issuance of the said Birth Certificate, were stated to be signed and stamped by Tarsem Singh, Councilor and although, the investigation is at the initial stage, the statement of Tarsem Singh has been recorded on 21.01.2022 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The true translation of the relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"PS BHARGO CAMP COMMISSIONERATE JALANDHAR Case FIR No 113 dated 25-9-2021 under section 419, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC PS Bhargo Camp, Commissionerate Jalandhar.
Statement of Tarsem Singh Lakorta Councilor Ward No 34, Jalandhar, under section 161 Cr.P.C. Mobile No 92561-49771 It is stated that I am the present councilor of Ward No.34 and I know personally to every person of my mohalla. The letter No.2827 dated 07-02-2014 and SDM Jalandhar order No.1921 dated 17-01-2014 which is regarding making late entry of the birth of Pushpinder 10 of 19 Kaur, documents I have seen, the signatures and seal regarding the attestation of these documents are not of mine. By got procuring these forged and fabricated signatures and seal by Sunita and her daughter Pushpinder Kaur got prepared the birth certificate and used the same for got issuing passport and procuring other documents and Sunita has shown the name of Palminder Singh as her husband and Pushpinder Kaur daughter of Palminder Singh, these signatures and seal are fake and forged. I never singed on these papers. In this regard I have already given an affidavit on dated 20-04- 2021 regarding the complaint bearing No.3633- DCP/2021. The statement has been got recorded and heard, which is correct. I will also depose the above said statement in the court at the time of evidence.

As per the statement of Tarsem Singh, his seal and his signatures on documents including document dated 07.02.2014 which has been submitted by the petitioner and her family members for issuance of Birth Certificate, are not his and thus, as per the prosecution case, the seal of Tarsem Singh has been counterfeited and his signatures have been forged, thus, making out an offence under Section 473 of the IPC apart from other offences. Thus, apart from other aspects, the custodial 12 of 19 interrogation of the petitioner is also required in order to recover the said seal and also to find out as to who are the persons who are involved in the commission of the offences, by virtue of which, the petitioner alongwith her family members, managed to procure the said Birth Certificate and other documents by submitting forged documents which are neither a part of the record of the Tehsildar nor have been stated to be signed/stamped by the concerned authority. The case of the complainant is that the said Palminder Singh was married to Raj Joginder Kaur on 23.07.1988 and the same was a registered married. It is further his case that the said Raj Joginder Kaur had two children namely Pawanjit Singh Johal and Gurinder Singh Johal with said Palminder Singh. It is also stated that the said Raj Joginder Kaur is still alive and thus, the said Sunita could not have said to be the legally wedded wife of Palminder Singh and the said aspect is also to be investigated by the police.