No Evidence of Tampering: Supreme Court Clears Shuttler Lakshya Sen in Birth Certificate Forgery Case

The Supreme Court on July 28, 2025, quashed criminal proceedings initiated against ace Shuttler Lakshya Sen, his brother Chirag, their parents and their coach in a case related to cheating and forgery for tampering their birth certificates.

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar held that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants was wholly unwarranted.

Court allowed the appeal against the Karnataka High Court's February 19, 2025 which rejected the plea to quash the FIR lodged on December 1, 2022, with High Grounds Police Station in Bengaluru on the direction of a judicial magistrate on a private complaint.

Court pointed out that the record indicated that the very allegations now sought to be revived were earlier subjected to scrutiny by competent authorities, including the Sports Authority of India and the Central Vigilance Commission, which found no material to proceed further. No fresh evidence had since come to light that would justify reopening what had already been closed upon due enquiry, it added.

Court found apparent vindictiveness and abuse of the process since the timeline indicated that the complainant Nagaraja M G’s grievances commenced only after his daughter was denied admission to the academy in 2020, the bench noted.

The bench also pointed out that the court had repeatedly cautioned against permitting the criminal law to be used as a weapon of harassment.

Court referred to Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) when 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 criminal process may be misused to achieve a collateral objective under the guise of legality," the bench said.

Court said, "The appellants, particularly Chirag and Lakshya, 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," the bench emphasised.

Senior advocate CA Sundaram contended that the underlying complaint was 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 was predicated upon an unverified and unauthenticated GPF form, which not only failed the test of admissibility but also had never been subjected to any forensic scrutiny.

He said the appellants’ date of birth have 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. He 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.

He said 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 complainant, on the other hand, contended 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 also contended that correctness of the contents of the said Form could be investigated by the authorities.

He argued that institutional exoneration did not preclude criminal investigation and that the medical age assessments made by said authorities were not conclusive and an investigation that may be carried out would unearth the truth.

Having considered the facts of the matter, the bench said, "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".

Court noted the entire edifice of the complaint was built upon a solitary document, the 1996 GPF nomination form, which was not only bereft of authentication, but also failed 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 (Chirag) and 3 (Lakshya) themselves, court said. 

"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," the bench said.

What is of greater concern is the evident pattern of vindictiveness that permeates the complaint, the bench said.

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," the bench said.

The court pointed out 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, as it cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992).

It also said the suggestion that a criminal investigation is necessary to test the allegations rang hollow when viewed in light of the numerous factual inquiries already conducted by competent authorities.

"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," the bench said.

Court noted the complaint proceeded 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, cast 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, the bench said.

During the course of hearing, the bench noted, when the court specifically posed a question to counsel for Respondent No. 2 (complainant) to clarify the nature of involvement of the players, their parents, 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 those provisions," the bench said.

Case Title: Chirag Sen And Another Etc Vs State of Karnataka

Judgment Date: July 28, 2025

Bench: Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar