Back
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, ARAVIND KUMAR
Chirag Sen and another etc. – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
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:
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 –
Cheating and forgery – While conclusion of administrative bodies is not conclusive for criminal liability, they do bear relevance when evaluating whether a complaint discloses prima facie grounds to ....
The court held that allegations arising from a civil dispute cannot constitute a criminal offence, and continuation of such proceedings amounts to an abuse of the legal process.
(1) Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Appreciation of contradictions or inconsistencies in witness statements lies within exclusive domain of trial Court and not in proceedings under Section 482 Cr....
The court ruled that an FIR cannot be quashed based on allegations of mala fides if it discloses cognizable offences, emphasizing the necessity of a trial to assess the truth of the allegations.
Criminal proceedings cannot be pursued when the validity of the document in question is already under adjudication in a civil court, to prevent abuse of the judicial process.
The court held that an FIR cannot be quashed if it discloses cognizable offences, and allegations of mala fide do not suffice for quashing proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
