The High Court of Karnataka has permitted the investigation against badminton star and Arjuna awardee Lakshya Sen, his elder brother Chirag Sen, also a badminton player, their parents, and a coach in a criminal case registered against them on the allegation of age fabrication.
“When prima facie materials are placed on record which constitute the offences, I do not find any reason either to stall the investigation or to quash the initiation of criminal proceedings,” Justice M.G. Uma observed in the order of dismissing the petitions.
There is sufficient material placed before the court by the complainant which are the documents that are obtained under the Right to Information Act from the appropriate authority, the court noted.
The brothers, along with their father Dhirendra K. Sen, who was a coach with the Sports Authority of India (SAI), mother Nirmala D. Sen, and coach U. Vimal Kumar, had questioned a First Information Report (FIR) registered against them in December 2022 on a private complaint by one Nagaraja M.G.
The FIR was registered on a direction by a metropolitan magistrate on December 2, 2022 but the High Court, in an interim order on December 22, 2022, stayed the probe.
It has been alleged in the complaint that the ages of the brothers were fabricated by their parents and Mr. Kumar to enable them to play in the junior categories of badminton tournaments since 2010.
The accused had fabricated the birth certificate to lower the ages of the brothers by two-and-a-half years, it has been alleged in the complaint, while claiming that an enquiry by the Ministry of Youth Affairs had found the father “guilty of the charges of fabricating the records”.
However, the petitioners have claimed that baseless allegations were made to humiliate them as Mr. Nagaraja’s daughter did not meet the criteria to join Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy in 2020.
The issue of age fabrication was closed as the Central Vigilance Commission in 2018 accepted the birth records submitted by Mr. Dhirendra and concluded that no action was required against him, and the complainant had not disclosed this aspect, the petitioners claimed.
Meanwhile, the court noted that the advocate for the petitioners had not argued the case despite granting sufficient opportunities. Before dismissing the petitions, the court had set deadline for their advocate to make arguments on a couple of dates since December 2024 but the advocate had sought time citing certain reasons.
The court declined to grant more time for argument as advocate for the police and the complainant pointed out that the petitioners were enjoying the benefit of stay order granted by the court against investigation since 2022.
