IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.               OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 3666 of 2006)

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

Versus

Nitin Agnihotri and Anr.    ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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