STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. versus NITIN AGNIHOTRI AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 26 · Decided: 21-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R.26 
'" 
A 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
V. 
NITIN AGNIHOTRI AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2008) 
B 
JULY 21, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
~ 
Cost - Imposition of - FIR JOdged - Allegation t/Jat 
daughter of complainant was abducted by Respondent No.1 · 
c - Writ petition by Respondent No.1 for quashing of FIR-: High 
Court quashed FIR and all consequential proceedings against· 
Respondent No. 1 - However, imposed cost on State af!d com-
plain ant - On appeal, held: Order of High Court so· far as it 
related to imposition of cost was without basis since there was 
D no finding recorded by it that the police officials; were remiss 
in any way and/or had committed any lapse during investiga-
tion - In absence of any reason for imposing cost, direction 
for payment of cost cannot be sustained and is set aside ...:. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Penal Code, 1860 ...:. 
E· s.366. 
Respondent No.2 lodged FIR stating that Respon-
dent No.1 alongwith his mother and sister had abducted 
his daughter. The FIR was registered as Crime Case un-
der Section 366, IPC. Respondent No.1 filed writ petition 
F seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for 
quashing of the FIR. High Court quashed the FIR and all 
consequential proceedings against Respondent No~ 1 and 
imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- on the State and Respondent 
No.2. 
G 
In appeal to this Court, Appellant-State contended 
that the police authorities had investigated into the mat-
ter on the basis of the complaint and the High Court was 
~ 
not justified in directing imposition of cost when it did not 
notice any lapse on the part of the concerned authorities. 
" 
H 
26 
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. v. NITIN AGNIHOTRI 
27 
& ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD:1.The impugned order of the High Court so 
far as it relates to the imposition of cost is founded on no 
basis. There is not even a finding recorded that the po-
lice officials were remiss in any way and/or had commit-
B 
ted any lapse during investigation. In the absence of any 
reason having been indicated by the High Court as to why 
the Court felt necessary for imposing cost, the direction 
for payment of cost cannot be sustained and is set aside. 
[Para 5] [29-E,F,G] 
c 
2. The Courts should not impose cost in the manner 
done· in the present case without recording any finding 
as to why imposition of cost was considered necessary. 
Unless any lapse on the part of any authority is found 
and opportunity is granted to the alleged erring official, D 
cost should not be imposed. Whenever it is felt that cost 
is to be imposed, the reason for such a conclusion has to 
be recorded. [Para 6] [29-G, 30-A] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1126 of 2008 
E 
From the final Judgment and order dated 28/6/2005 of 
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, 
Lucknow in Writ Petition No. 4120(MB) of 2005 
; 
Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.A.G., Sahdev Singh Gunnam 
F 
Venkate~wara Rao and Vibha Dwivedi for the Appellants. 
Siddharth Bambha, M.A. Krishna Moorthy, K. Krishna 
Kumar and Anish Kumar Gupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
-1, 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division 
r" 
Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow 
in Writ Petition No. 4120 (M/B) of 2005. 
H 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008) 11 S.C.R. 
. \ 
A 
A 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
; The aforesaid writ petition was filed by respondent No.1, 
a practicing advocate in the High Court of Allahabad fpr issu-
.ance.of writ petition in the nature of certiorari for quashing the 
B FIR registered as Crime Case No.165/2005 under Section 366 
of; the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') in Police 
Station, Krishna Nag.ar, Lucknow and for certain other reliefs. It 
was stated that FIR dated 9.6.2005 was lodged by Sardar 
Mahendra Singh- respondent No.2 at the aforesaid police sta-
c tion. In the FIR it was stated that respondent.No.1 alongwith his 
mother and sister had abducted daughter of respondent No.2 
~ ~ ' 
~ ' 
. 
. 
. 
. 
" 
0118:6.2005.at 7.30 p.tn. After the FIR was lodged, police started 
investigation and recorded the statement of wife of the com-
plainant. Statement of one Kamaljit. Kaur was also recorded 
D 
wh9s:e v~rsion was same as that of ~mt. Manjit Kaur. The statB·-
ni~nf,of ~agjitKau

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.