STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.versusNITIN AGNIHOTRI AND ANR.

                          [2008] 11 S.C.R.26


A                    STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.                          '"
                                  V.
                    NITIN AGNIHOTRI AND ANR.
                 (Criminal Appeal No.1126 of 2008)
                           JULY 21, 2008
B
      [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 ...:.
  s.366.
E·
          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-
    tion. In the FIR it was stated that respondent.No.1 alongwith his
c 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
    wh9s:e v~rsion was same as that of ~mt. Manjit Kaur. The statB·-
D ni~nf,of ~agjitKaur, aunt of the abducted girl was also recorded .
   .·on 20.6}005 statement of ArunKumar Singh was recorded by
    the police. According to him at about 8.00 p.m. he had seen the
    girl alongwith present respondent No.1-Nitln Agnihotri on a rick-
    shaw. The statements of Raj Kumar and Sanjeev Sabarwal
E 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·investiga-
    tion 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
F was filed with oblique motive. The High Court restrained the
    authorities and directed that they should not interfere with the
    pepceful living of the accused persons in connection with the
    FIR referred to above. The High Court also directed grant of
    protection to Ms. Neena Agn!hotri and observed that she was
G   free  to go and stay at any place she desired. A direction was
   given for her appearance on 25.6.2905 under police force pro-
    tection. On 28.6.2005 the High Court quashed the FIR and all
   consequential proceedings including Crime Case No.165/05                  ">-
    pending before learned Specia: Chief Judicial Magistrate (Gus··
    toms), Lucknow. The accused persons_.in the FIR were directed                  "
H
         STATE OF U.P. & ANR. v. NITIN AGNIHOTRI              29
              & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

to be set free and the Judicial Magistrate was directed to take A
cognizance,under Section 181 of the Code of Criminal Proce-
dure, 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 threat-
ened by her-in-laws. The concerned Bench of the High Court 8
was again constituted and order was passed that Shri Manornm
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 c
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 impo-
sition of cost on respondent No.2 would create rift between the
two families and cost should not be paid by respondent No.2 0
on giving an undertaking that he would re-concile to the situa-
tion:
     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       E
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. F
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 indi-
cated by the High Court as to why the Court felt necessary for
imposing cost, the direction for payment of cost cannot be sus- G
tained 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 impo~      H
    30        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2008) 11 S.C.R.

A   sition 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, cost should not be imposed. When-
    ever it is felt that cost is to be imposed' the reason for such a
    conclusion has to be recorded.
B
         7 . The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to
    costs.
    B.B.B.                                         Appeal allowed.