The power conferred by Section 476, CrPC on a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court to take cognizance of certain offences committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings before it, is discretionary as evident from the expression, “may take cognizance”, used in the Section. No doubt, like all other discretionary powers, the court concerned is to exercise this discretion judiciously, not arbitrarily, while taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. Previously, before its substitution by the Act XXI of 1976, Section 476 had stated it expressly that the court is to take action under Section 476 when it is of opinion that “it is expedient in the interests of justice” that an inquiry should be made into such an offence. As the discretionary powers must always be exercised in the interests of justice, we are of the considered view that notwithstanding the omission of that expression in the present Section 476, while exercising its discretion under this Section the court concerned should give prime consideration to the question, whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to take cognizance of the offence. The court is to exercise this discretionary power with due care and caution, and must be watchful of the fact that its process under Section 476 is not abused by an unscrupulous litigant scheming to wreak private vengeance or satisfy a private grudge against a person, as has been done by the petitioner in the present case.
Imposition of costs. Such frivolous, vexatious and speculative litigation unduly burdens the courts giving artificial rise to pendency of cases which in turn clogs the justice system and delays the resolution of genuine disputes. Such litigation is required to be rooted out of the system and one of the ways to curb such practice of instituting frivolous and vexatious cases is by imposing of costs under Order 28 Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 (“Rules”). The spectre of being made liable to pay actual costs should be such as to make every litigant think twice befor putting forth a vexatious claim or defence before the Court. These costs in an appropriate case can be over and above the nominal costs which include costs of the time spent by the successful party, the transportation and lodging, if any, or any other incidental cost, besides the amount of the court fee, process fee and lawyer's fee paid in relation to the litigation. Imposition of costs in frivilous and vexatious cases meets the requirement of fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution, as it not only discourages frivilous claims or defences brought to the court house but also absence of such cases allows more court time for the adjudication of genuine claims. It also incentivizes the litigants to adopt alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes and arrive at a settlement rather than rushing to courts. Costs lay the foundation for expeditious justice6 and promote a smart legal system that enhances access to justice by entertaining genuine claims. The purpose of awarding costs at one level is to compensate the successful party for the expenses incurred to which he has been subjected and at another level to be an effective tool to purge the legal system of frivolous, vexatious and speculative claims and defences. In a nutshell costs enourage alternative dispute resolution; settlements between the parties; and reduces unnecessary burden off the courts, so that they can attend to genuine claims. Costs are a weapon of offence for the plaintiff with a just claim to present and a shield to the defendant who has been unfairly brought into court
Succession Certificate/. C.P.3127/2020
Qazi Naveed ul Islam v. District Judge, Gujrat and others
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah
12-01-2023
0 Comments