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

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

The High Court erred in imposing cost on the State and complainant without any finding or reason indicating remissness by the police or any lapse during investigation; in the absence of such reason, the imposition of cost could not be sustained and was set aside.

Parties
Appellant: State of U.P.; Respondent No.1: Nitin Agnihotri; Respondent No.2: Mahendra Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
21 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in W.p. No. 4120(mb) of 2005
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Quashing of FIR, Imposition of Costs, Section 366 IPC, Writ Under Article 226
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Quashing of FIR Imposition of Costs Section 366 IPC Writ Under Article 226

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of U.P.

Appellant

Nitin Agnihotri

Respondent No.1

Mahendra Singh

Respondent No.2

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in W.p. No. 4120(mb) of 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court was justified in imposing cost on the State and complainant when quashing the FIR against respondent no.1 without finding any lapse by the police.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in imposing cost on the State and complainant without any finding or reason indicating remissness by the police or any lapse during investigation; in the absence of such reason, the imposition of cost could not be sustained and was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order of the High Court, insofar as it relates to imposition of cost, is set aside.
  • No order as to costs.