Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 903
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. Of 2025
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No. _____ of 2025
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) DIARY NO.9824 OF 2025)
CHIRAG SEN AND ANOTHER ETC. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
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:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.07.28
17:13:07 IST
Reason:
1) Chirag Sen, son of Dhirendra Kumar Sen, aged about 26 years;
1
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.
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.
2
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 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
3
and allegations related to age-fraud, observed that the Commission was of the
th
view that Birth Certificate and 10 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
4
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 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
5
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 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
6
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 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
7
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
8
illustrative of how 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.
9
25. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. There shall be no order
as to costs.
.……………………………., J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
.……………………………., J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
New Delhi;
July 28, 2025.
10
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. Of 2025
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No. _____ of 2025
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) DIARY NO.9824 OF 2025)
CHIRAG SEN AND ANOTHER ETC. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
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:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2025.07.28
17:13:07 IST
Reason:
1) Chirag Sen, son of Dhirendra Kumar Sen, aged about 26 years;
1
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.
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.
2
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 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
3
and allegations related to age-fraud, observed that the Commission was of the
th
view that Birth Certificate and 10 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
4
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 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
5
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 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
6
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 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
7
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
8
illustrative of how 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.
9
25. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. There shall be no order
as to costs.
.……………………………., J.
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]
.……………………………., J.
[ARAVIND KUMAR]
New Delhi;
July 28, 2025.
10