Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Lakshya Sen in Birth Certificate Forgery Case

Add as a preferred source on Google

New Delhi, July 28: The Supreme Court of India on Monday (July 28) put an end to the legal cloud hanging over Indian badminton star Lakshya Sen, his family, and coach U. Vimal Kumar, by quashing an FIR filed against them in a birth certificate forgery case.

A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar ruled that the continuation of criminal proceedings against Sen and the others was unwarranted and amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.

The court observed that there was insufficient cause to proceed further in the matter and emphasised the importance of ensuring that criminal law is not misused to harass individuals without substantive evidence.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a private complaint filed by M.G. Nagaraj, who alleged that the birth records of Lakshya Sen and his brother Chirag Sen were forged. According to Nagaraj, the forgery was orchestrated by their parents Dhirendra and Nirmala Sen, with the involvement of their coach Vimal Kumar and an employee of the Karnataka Badminton Association.

The Karnataka High Court had earlier, on February 19, 2025, refused to quash the FIR and observed that there was prima facie evidence necessitating an investigation into the complaint. That decision prompted Sen and the others named in the case to move the Supreme Court, seeking relief from further prosecution.

Supreme Court Overrules Karnataka HC

The Supreme Court's latest ruling effectively overrules the Karnataka High Court’s February decision and puts an end to the legal battle for Sen and those named alongside him. The bench had earlier issued notices to both the Karnataka government and Nagaraj before coming to a final decision on the matter.

What This Means for Lakshya Sen

The decision comes as a major relief for Lakshya Sen, who has been a key figure in Indian badminton’s rise on the global stage. With this distraction now behind him, the 23-year-old can fully focus on his training and international commitments.

The ruling also underlines the judiciary’s role in preventing the misuse of criminal law in cases where intent and evidence remain ambiguous or insufficient.

(With PTI Inputs)