LexCHIRAG SEN AND ANOTHER ETC. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.