The Supreme Court on Monday quashed the cheating and forgery case registered by Karnataka Police against badminton players Lakshya Sen and Chirag Sen [Chirag Sen & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Anr]

A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar held that complaint was based on conjecture and failed to disclose any offence under Sections 420 (cheating), 468 (forgery) or 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court also found that the criminal process had been set in motion years after the same allegations were examined and closed by the Sports Authority of India (SAI) and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and that no fresh evidence had emerged since.

“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," the judgment said.

The complaint registered at Bengaluru's High Grounds Police Station alleged that the two payers and their family members had manipulated documents to gain age-related benefits in junior badminton tournaments.

The FIR was registered after a private complaint filed eight years after administrative closure of the matter.

The Court noted that the entire prosecution hinged on a single nomination form from 1996 which had never been authenticated.

“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 Court held.

The judgment said that this document, even if presumed genuine, could not override official records.

“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 Bench said.

It further noted that despite serious claims being made against athletes who have represented India at the international stage, the complainant had made no attempt to challenge the official birth certificates in any legal forum.

“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," the judgment said.

The Court further found the allegations vague and suspect, especially in light of the complainant’s conduct which disclosed vindictiveness.

“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.”

It also took note of institutional findings that had cleared the players after medical examination and record verification.

The Court underscored that no ingredients of the IPC offences were met.

“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 judgment said.

When asked by the Court, the counsel for the complainant was unable to establish any link between the players or their coach and the alleged act of forgery.

The bench took into account the players’ record, the absence of any fresh evidence and the prior closure of proceedings by competent authorities.

“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 Bench opined.

The Court brought the matter to a close by highlighting the dangers of pursuing criminal proceedings without material basis. It noted that such cases if allowed to continue, could distort the purpose of criminal law.

It held that the legal process should not be invoked where the threshold for criminal prosecution is not met.

“The invocation of criminal law in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of process, which this Court cannot countenance,” the Court concluded.

[Read Judgment]