State Of U.P. & Anr vs Nitin Agnihotiri & Anr

State of U.P. and Anr. ...Appellant

Versus

Nitin Agnihotri and Anr. ..Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division

Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow

in Writ Petition No. 4120 (M/B) of 2005.

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 for

issuance of writ petition in the nature of certiorari for

quashing the 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 Nagar, 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 station. In the FIR it was stated that

respondent No.1 alongwith his mother and sister had

abducted daughter of respondent No.2 on 8.6.2005 at 7.30

p.m. After the FIR was lodged, police started investigation and

recorded the statement of wife of the complainant. Statement

of one Kamaljit Kaur was also recorded whose version was

same as that of Smt. Manjit Kaur. The statement of Jagjit

Kaur, aunt of the abducted girl was also recorded. On

20.6.2005 statement of Arun Kumar Singh was recorded by

2 the police. According to him at about 8.00 p.m. he had seen

the girl alongwith present respondent No.1-Nitin Agnihotri on

a rickshaw. The statements of Raj Kumar and Sanjeev

Sabarwal neighbours of the complainant were also recorded.

Father and mother of the accused were arrested by the police

on 21.6.05. The High Court by an interim order stayed the

further investigation in Crime Case No.165/05. By an order

dated 27.6.05 it further held that FIR against Nitin Agnihotri

by respondent No.2 was filed with oblique motive. The High

Court restrained the authorities and directed that they

should not interfere with the peaceful living of the accused

persons in connection with the FIR referred to above. The High

Court also directed grant of protection to Ms. Neena Agnihotri

and observed that she was free to go and stay at any place she

desired. A direction was given for her appearance on

25.6.2005 under police force protection. On 28.6.2005 the

High Court quashed the FIR and all consequential

proceedings including Crime Case No.165/05 pending before

learned Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (Customs), Lucknow.

The accused persons in the FIR were directed to be set free

3 and the Judicial Magistrate was directed to take cognizance

under Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in

short `the Code') against respondent No.2 for filing with

oblique motive the FIR. Before the said order was signed Ms.

Neena Arora complained that she was being threatened by

her-in-laws. The concerned Bench of the High Court was

again constituted and order was passed that Shri Manoram

Agnihotri and his wife were to be released, and security was to

be provided to Nitin Agnihotri and his wife and the authorities

were to ensure that the aforesaid persons were not harassed

in any way. The High Court thereafter in the concluding para

of the judgment held that it was a fit case where cost of

Rs.50,000/- was to be imposed against the State and

respondent No.2-the father of the girl. The High Court further

observed that imposition of cost on respondent No.2 would

create rift between the two families and cost should not be

paid by respondent No.2 on giving an undertaking that he

would re-concile to the situation.

4

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that

the police authorities had investigated into the matter on the

basis of the complaint. They were performing their duties and

have recorded the statements of various persons. The High

Court did not notice any lapse on the part of the authorities

and yet directed imposition of cost as aforesaid.

5. We find that 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 police officials

were remiss in any way and/or had committed 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.

6. Before parting with the case, we would like to indicate

that 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

5 on the part of any authority is found and opportunity is

granted to the alleged erring official, 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.

7. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

..............................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

..............................J. (H.S. BEDI) New Delhi, July 21, 2008

6