Lakshya Sen of India
Credit: Reuters Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday quashed criminal proceedings and an FIR lodged against Shuttler Lakshya Sen, his brother, their parents and a coach for allegedly forging the birth certificates.
A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar found an "evident pattern of vindictiveness that permeates the complaint" filed by one Nagaraja M G only after his daughter was denied admission to the academy in 2020.
The court pointed out 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 said.
The court noted the FIR was registered in 2022 with High Grounds Police station in Bengaluru on a direction by a judicial magistrate, even though the same matter was already examined and closed by multiple authorities, including the Sports Authority of India and the CVC, 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.
Holding that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants was wholly unwarranted, the bench 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.
The complainant claimed the 1996 GPF form filled by Lakshya's father to substantiate his allegations.
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.
The court pointed out the record indicated that the very allegations now sought to be revived were earlier subjected to scrutiny by competent authorities, including Sports Authority of India and CVC, 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," it said.
The bench emphasised this court has repeatedly cautioned against permitting the criminal law to be used as a weapon of harassment.
"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.
The appellants were represented by senior advocate C A Sundaram and advocate Rohini Musa. The counsel contended that the 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.
They said the FIR was 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.
Agreeing to their contention, the court opined, the case fell squarely within the category of exceptional circumstances warranting interference at the threshold to prevent abuse of the criminal process.
The court said the 1996 GPF nomination form 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 appellants," the bench said.
It held 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.
Relying upon State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992), 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.
It also said 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.