CHIRAG SEN AND ANOTHER ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1697 : 2025 INSC 903

                     Chirag Sen and Another Etc.
                                   v.
                    State of Karnataka and Another
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 3213 of 2025)
                                  28 July 2025
           [Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the
       High Court declining to quash the criminal proceedings initiated
       against the appellants-accused on the allegations relating to
       falsification of birth records for securing benefits and selections
       in age-restricted badminton tournaments.

                                   Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of criminal
       proceedings – Private complaint before the Metropolitan
       Magistrate against the appellants-badminton players of national
       acclaim, their parents and their coach alleging falsification
       of birth records for securing benefits and selections in age-
       restricted badminton tournaments – Magistrate directed
       investigation – Pursuant thereto, registration of FIR – Petitions
       seeking quashing of the FIR and the criminal proceedings –
       Rejected by the High Court – Correctness:
       Held: Having regard to the totality of circumstances, the
       continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants
       wholly unwarranted – Complaint does not disclose the basic
       elements required to attract the offences u/ss.420, 468, and 471
       IPC – No allegation that any of the appellants forged or fabricated
       a document, or that they knowingly used a forged document as
       genuine – 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 – 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 said
       provisions – Record indicates that the very allegations now sought
       to be revived were earlier subjected to scrutiny by competent

* Author
1698                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


    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 – Appellants, particularly
    the 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 – Invocation of criminal law in such
    circumstances would amount to an abuse of process, which this
    Court cannot countenance – Impugned order passed by the High
    Court set aside, and the FIR and all further proceedings quashed.
    [Paras 17-24]

                            Case Law Cited
    Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [2004]
    Supp. 5 SCR 790 : (2005) 1 SCC 122; State of Haryana v. Bhajan
    Lal [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335; Pepsi
    Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 12 :
    (1998) 5 SCC 749 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Constitution
    of India; Right to Information Act, 2005.

                            List of Keywords
    Quashing of the criminal proceedings; Falsification of birth
    records; Securing benefits and selections in age-restricted
    badminton tournaments; Badminton players of national acclaim;
    Badminton coach; Delay; Personal grudge; Bona fides of the
    complaint; Criminal investigation; Administrative bodies; Criminal
    liability; Forged document; International badminton tournaments;
    Commonwealth Games and BWF international events; Criminal
    trial; Invocation of criminal law.

                           Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    3213 of 2025
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          1699

     Chirag Sen and Another Etc. v. State of Karnataka and Another


     From the Judgment and Order dated 19.02.2025 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP Nos. 26156, 25699 and 26136
     of 2022

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     C.A. Sundram, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rohini Musa, Badri Vishal, Ayush Negi.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Vikram Hegde, Abhishek Wadiyar.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     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;
     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.
1700                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


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.
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
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      1701

    Chirag Sen and Another Etc. v. State of Karnataka and Another


     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 and allegations related to age-fraud, observed
     that the Commission was of the view that Birth Certificate and 10th
     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 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
1702                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     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 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
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        1703

    Chirag Sen and Another Etc. v. State of Karnataka and Another


     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 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
1704                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     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 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 illustrative of how
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      1705

    Chirag Sen and Another Etc. v. State of Karnataka and Another


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

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain