Back
Imposes Rs 25,000 Costs for of FIR
In a significant ruling on of criminal proceedings, the recently quashed a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against Kaustubh Shivkumar Vibhute but imposed costs of Rs 25,000, firmly stating that courts cannot be used as recovery mechanisms. Justice Milind N. Jadhav, presiding over the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, underscored the need to deter parties from misusing criminal law to settle commercial scores.
A Commercial Dispute Turned Criminal
The case arose from a business relationship between the applicant, Kaustubh Shivkumar Vibhute, and a company (Respondent No. 2). Substantial amounts were advanced based on vendor invoices, and when outstanding payments remained unpaid, the company invoked criminal proceedings. The FIR, registered at Baner Police Station, Pune City in , alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 316(4), 336(3), 340(2), 335, 344, and 319(2) of the , read with Sections 65, 66C, and 66D of the .
Mutual Settlement and Joint Request for Quashing
The parties eventually reconciled their differences, and the entire outstanding amount was fully repaid. Both sides jointly approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, arguing that the dispute was purely commercial and that continued prosecution would hinder their business prospects. The court interacted with the director and authorized signatory of the complainant company via video call, confirming the settlement.
The Court's Firm Stance on Costs
While allowing the quashing petition, Justice Jadhav laid down a clear principle: criminal law cannot be used as a "" or a tool to force financial settlements. The judge observed that imposing costs in matters serves three critical purposes: preventing wastage of public resources, conserving valuable judicial time, and deterring .
"In simple words, Courts cannot be used as a to settle scores and/or bring the parties into subjugation. I am of the firm opinion that imposition of costs in matters is required to be levied for three main reasons viz., wastage of public resources, consumption of valuable judicial time and for deterrence against ."
The court further noted that filing strategically exaggerated criminal complaints—especially in matrimonial or commercial disputes—to force settlements is a growing trend that must be curbed.
Legal Framework and Precedents
The judgment referred to the landmark Supreme Court decision in State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (1992 AIR 604), which laid down guidelines for quashing FIRs under (now ). The court reiterated that even can be quashed where the dispute is private and does not impact society at large, but that imposing costs is necessary to check .
Final Decision and Practical Implications
Justice Jadhav quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, including any charge-sheet, against the applicant. However, the applicant was directed to pay Rs 25,000 as costs to the , which runs medical centres, vocational training centres, and a special school for 150 children with intellectual disabilities in Mumbai. The amount must be deposited within two weeks, with compliance to be shown on . The court warned that non-compliance or absence on the returnable date could lead to recall of the order.
This ruling sends a strong message that will not be granted as a matter of course in commercial disputes, and that parties who set the criminal machinery in motion must bear the cost of wasting public and judicial resources.
