2025 INSC 903 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. Of 2025

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No. _____ of 2025

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) DIARY NO.9824 OF 2025)

CHIRAG SEN AND ANOTHER ETC. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise from a common judgment

dated 19.02.2025 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in W.P.

Nos. 25699/2022, 26156/2022, and 26136/2022, whereby the High Court

declined to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants-

accused on allegations relating to falsification of birth records for the purpose

of securing benefits and selections in age-restricted badminton tournaments.

3. The appellants before this Court are:

1)Chirag Sen, son of Dhirendra Kumar Sen, aged about 26 years;

1

2)Nirmala Dhirendra Sen, wife of Dhirendra Kumar Sen, aged about

57 years;

3)Lakshya Sen, son of Dhirendra Kumar Sen, aged about 23 years;

4)U. Vimal Kumar, son of Unnikrishnan Nair, aged about 63 years;

and

5) Dhirendra Kumar Sen, son of Late C.L. Sen, aged about 62 years.

4. Appellants Nos. 1 and 3 are established badminton players of national

acclaim. Appellant No. 4 is a reputed national coach and director of the

Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy (“PPBA”). Appellants Nos. 2 and 5

are the parents of Appellants Nos. 1 and 3.

5. The proceedings emanate from a complaint dated 27.06.2022 lodged

by Respondent No. 2 – Shri Nagaraja M.G., before the Police Inspector, High

Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru. The said complaint, [mentioned in diary

as Petition No. 111/2022], alleged that Appellant No.1 – Chirag Sen and

Appellant No. 3 – Lakshya Sen – had misrepresented their date of birth to

qualify for tournaments in the Under-13 and Under-15 categories and thereby

gained wrongful selection and monetary rewards. It was alleged that their

parents—Appellants Nos. 2 and 5—and along with coach—Appellant No. 4

—had conspired to forge and fabricate records in support of the

misrepresentation.

6. As no FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint, Respondent

No. 2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Court of

the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, which came to

be registered as P.C.R. No. 14448/2022. By order dated 16.11.2022, the

learned Magistrate directed investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

2

7. In pursuance of the above order, FIR No. 194/2022 came to be

registered on 01.12.2022 by High Grounds Police Station, Bengaluru City,

invoking Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

against the appellants. The FIR reiterates the core allegations in the private

complaint and alleges that the appellants fabricated the birth certificate of

Appellant (s) No. 1 and 3 to obtain benefits from government and public

recognition on false premises.

8. Challenging the registration of FIR No. 194/2022 and the order passed

under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in P.C.R. No. 14448/2022, the appellants

instituted three separate writ petitions before the High Court of Karnataka

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The said writ petitions were:

i.W.P. No. 25699/2022 – filed by Appellant No. 3 (Lakshya Sen) and

Appellant No.4 (Vimal Kumar-coach).

ii.W.P. No. 26156/2022 – filed by Appellant No.1 (Chirag Sen) and

Appellant No. 5 (Nirmala Sen-mother),

iii.W.P. No. 26136/2022 – filed by Appellant No. 5 (Dhirendra Sen-

father).

9. The appellants contend that identical allegations had been raised

nearly a decade earlier and were subjected to scrutiny by competent statutory

authorities including the Sports Authority of India (“SAI”), the Central

Vigilance Commission (“CVC”), and the Education Department of the

Government of Karnataka. On 06.02.2018, the CVC vide Official

Memorandum bearing No.017/EDN/038/370760 while examining the case

3

and allegations related to age-fraud, observed that the Commission was of the

view that Birth Certificate and 10

th

Class Certificate are final. Accordingly,

SAI closed the case against the Appellants in view of the CVC

recommendation.

10. Despite the above administrative closure, Respondent No. 2

proceeded to initiate fresh criminal proceedings after a gap of nearly eight

years, by way of the said private complaint and the consequent FIR. Hence,

appellants sought for quashing of the proceedings.

11. By a common judgment dated 19.02.2025, the High Court dismissed

the writ petitions. The High Court observed that the documents annexed to the

complaint and procured under the Right to Information Act, 2005, prima facie

disclosed grounds for investigation, and that it would be inappropriate to

quash the proceedings at the preliminary stage. The High Court held that prior

administrative verifications would not preclude criminal prosecution where

allegations disclosed cognizable offences warranting investigation.

12. The appellants, assailing the correctness of the High Court’s

reasoning and asserting that continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to

a gross abuse of process, have preferred the present appeals.

Contentions of the Parties

13.Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellants, contended that the FIR and the underlying complaint are a

textbook instance of abuse of process, instigated by personal hostility and

designed to harass the appellants for reasons wholly extraneous to law. He

submitted that the impugned FIR is predicated upon an unverified and

unauthenticated GPF form, which not only fails the test of admissibility but

also has never been subjected to any forensic scrutiny. The said form, it was

4

argued, does not even bear the name of the second appellant (Lakshya Sen),

who was not born in 1996 and could not have been mentioned in a nomination

form of that year.

14.Learned senior counsel emphasized that the appellants’ date of birth

are consistently recorded in statutory documents issued by the competent

authorities, none of which have ever been challenged or disproved. The

material relied upon by the complainant is riddled with speculation, and no

element of criminal intent or wrongful gain has been demonstrated. It was

further submitted that various medical boards had independently verified the

biological age of the players and found the same to be compatible with the

documentary record.

15.He further submitted that allowing the proceedings to continue,

despite institutional clearance by the Sports Authority of India, Badminton

Authority of India, and Central Vigilance Commission, would not only cause

grave prejudice to the appellants’ sporting careers but would also undermine

public confidence in the sanctity of investigative findings arrived at by these

specialized agencies. The High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings,

without a full hearing and on a summary basis, was stated to be a serious

failure to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226.

16.On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for second respondent,

reiterated that the 1996 GPF form evidenced earlier knowledge within the

family of the players’ dates of birth and alleged that these were subsequently

altered to gain eligibility benefits. He would also contend that correctness of

the contents of the said Form can be investigated by the authorities. He argued

that institutional exoneration does not preclude criminal investigation and that

the medical age assessments made by said authorities were not conclusive and

investigation that may be carried out would unearth the truth. Hence, he prays

5

for dismissal of these petitions and prays for confirming the order of the High

Court.

Analysis and Findings

17.Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents on record,

and rival contentions, we are of the firm view that the present case falls

squarely within the category of exceptional circumstances warranting

interference at the threshold to prevent abuse of the criminal process.

18.The entire edifice of the complaint is built upon a solitary document,

the 1996 GPF nomination form—which is not only bereft of authentication,

but also fails to establish any fraudulent intent or act attributable to the

appellants. The said form, even if assumed to be genuine, does not override

the birth certificates issued by statutory authorities, nor does it constitute

proof of any falsification on the part of appellant Nos.1 and 3 themselves. The

complainant has neither challenged the validity of the official birth records

before any civil forum nor offered any explanation as to why the alleged

discrepancies were not raised contemporaneously. It is evident from the

material placed on record that the allegations are based on conjecture and

surmises, and are manifestly intended to malign the appellants. No dishonest

inducement or gain is demonstrated, nor is there any wrongful loss caused to

the State or a third party. The allegations against the appellants do not fulfil

the essential ingredients of Sections 420, 468 or 471 IPC. In Zandu

Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, (2005) 1 SCC 122,

this Court reiterated that where allegations are inherently improbable and no

case is made out, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process.

19.What is of greater concern is the evident pattern of vindictiveness that

permeates the complaint. The undisputed timeline indicates that the

6

complainant’s grievances commenced only after his daughter was denied

admission to the academy in 2020. The FIR was registered in 2022— after the

same matter was examined and closed by multiple authorities, including the

CVC, which is a premier integrity institution under the Government of India.

The delay, absence of new material, and apparent personal grudge collectively

undermine the bona fides of the complaint.

20.While jurisdiction to quash must be exercised with caution, the law

equally mandates that courts must not remain passive in the face of manifest

injustice. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this

Court recognized that where a criminal proceeding is instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the Court has a duty to interdict such

abuse.

21.The suggestion that a criminal investigation is necessary to test the

allegations rings hollow when viewed in light of the numerous factual

inquiries already conducted by competent authorities. It is relevant to note

that the issue of age discrepancy had already been examined at the

administrative level. The SAI, on receiving complaints, initiated a verification

process in 2016, which included medical testing and factual inquiries. The

players underwent bone ossification and dental examination tests conducted at

government-run hospitals including AIIMS, Delhi. The findings of these tests

supported the birth years as recorded in official documents. On that basis, the

SAI closed the matter. The CVC, an independent oversight body, was also

seized of the issue and recommended no disciplinary proceedings against

D.K. Sen. These findings were accepted by the relevant authorities and have

not been set aside or reopened. While the conclusion of administrative bodies

is not conclusive for criminal liability, they do bear relevance when evaluating

whether a complaint discloses prima facie grounds to proceed further. We are

not concerned here with a case where material is being unearthed for the first

7

time. Rather, the complainant seeks to reopen settled issues that have already

been examined thoroughly and closed, without any allegation of fraud or

suppression in those proceedings.

22.Insofar as the applicability of Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC is

concerned, the complaint does not disclose the basic elements required to

attract these offences. There is no allegation that any of the appellants forged

or fabricated a document, or that they knowingly used a forged document as

genuine. Equally, there is no averment that any person or authority was

dishonestly induced to part with property or confer a benefit as a result of any

such act. The complaint proceeds on the assumption that an entry in a GPF

nomination form, allegedly filled up by the father (Appellant No.5) of the

players in 1996, casts doubt on the subsequently issued birth records of the

players. Even taking the said form at face value, it is neither demonstrated

how the players—who were minors at the time—or their coach had any role

in its preparation, nor shown that the document was ever used to obtain a

benefit under false pretence. During the course of hearing, when the Court

specifically posed a question to counsel for Respondent No. 2 to clarify the

nature of involvement of the players, their parent, or the coach in any act

amounting to forgery or cheating, no satisfactory explanation was offered.

The absence of any direct or indirect material linking the appellants to a

culpable act or intention reinforces the conclusion that the allegations, even if

taken at their highest, do not meet the threshold necessary to justify a criminal

prosecution under the aforesaid provisions. This Court has repeatedly

cautioned against permitting the criminal law to be used as a weapon of

harassment. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5

SCC 749, it was held that summoning an accused in a criminal proceeding is

a serious matter and should not be undertaken lightly. The present case is

8

illustrative of how criminal process may be misused to achieve a collateral

objective under the guise of legality.

23.Having regard to the totality of circumstances, we are of the

considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against

the appellants is wholly unwarranted. The record indicates that the very

allegations now sought to be revived were earlier subjected to scrutiny by

competent authorities, which found no material to proceed further. No fresh

evidence has since come to light that would justify reopening what had

already been closed upon due enquiry. The appellants, particularly Appellant

Nos. 1 and 3, are sportspersons of national standing, having represented India

in international badminton tournaments and having earned multiple accolades,

including medals at the Commonwealth Games and BWF international

events. To compel such individuals who have maintained an unblemished

record and brought distinction to the country through sustained excellence,to

undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial in the absence of prima facie material

would not subserve the ends of justice. The invocation of criminal law in such

circumstances would amount to an abuse of process, which this Court cannot

countenance.

24.For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are allowed. The impugned

order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P. Nos.

26156/2022, 25699/2022 and 26136/2022 is set aside. Consequently, FIR No.

194/2022 dated 01.12.2022 registered by High Grounds Police Station,

Bengaluru, and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof, including P.C.R.

No. 14448/2022, stand quashed.

9

25.Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. There shall be no order

as to costs.

.……………………………., J.

[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

.……………………………., J.

[ARAVIND KUMAR]

New Delhi;

July 28, 2025.

10