IMPORTANT POINT
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 proceed further.

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:

1) Chirag Sen, son of Dhirendra Kumar Sen, aged about 26 years;

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.

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 and allegations related to age-fraud, observed that the Commission was of the view that Birth Certificate and 10th 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