In this landmark judgment related to awarding of costs by High Courts and below courts under CrPC 482, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that,

Section 148(3) provides that when any costs have been incurred by any party to a proceeding under Section 145, Section 146 or Section 147, the Magistrate passing a decision may direct by whom such costs shall be paid, whether by such party or by any other party to the proceeding, and whether in whole or in part or proportion and such costs may include any expenses incurred in respect of witnesses and of pleaders’ fees, which the Court may consider reasonable.

Section 342 provides that any Court dealing with an application made to it for filing a complaint under Section 340 or an appeal under Section 341, shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just.

Section 357 provides for payment of compensation to the victim for any loss or injury caused by the offence or in case of death to the heirs of the victims out of the fine imposed and while awarding compensation court has to take into consideration, inter alia, the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution.

Section 358 provides for payment of compensation where any person causes a police officer to arrest another person, without sufficient ground for causing such arrest, then compensation can be awarded by the Magistrate not exceeding Rs. 100/-.

Further, Section 359 empowers the Court to order payment of cost to the complainant in non cognizable case, if it convicts the accused and in such case, the Court can pass an order for payment of costs incurred by the complainant in the prosecution of the case and such costs may include any expenses incurred in respect of process fees, witnesses and pleaders fees which the Court considers reasonable.

And then,

In appropriate cases, where it is necessary to pass such order, Court may award costs for the purposes, namely,

(i) to give effect to any order passed under the Court

(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court and

(iii) to secure the ends of justice as there is no
(i) negative provision for exercise of such power and (ii) inconsistency with the other provisions.

Further, awarding of costs, as stated above, can be for two purposes, one for meeting the litigation expenses and, secondly, for preventing the abuse of the process of Court or to do justice in a matter and in such circumstances, costs can be exemplary.

Final order

In the result, we hold that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Court has power to pass such orders (not inconsistent with any provision of the Code) including the order for costs in appropriate cases, (i) to give effect to any order passed under the Code or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
(iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
As stated above, this extraordinary power is to be used in extrao rdinary circumstances and in a judicious manner. Costs may be to meet the litigation expenses or purposes can be exemplary to achieve the aforesaid In view of the aforesaid findings, this appeal is dismissed.