The High Court of Punjab and Haryana reiterates its discretion to impose costs when a petition is withdrawn after engaging significant judicial time, particularly under its inherent powers. This is a reaffirmation of settled principles that aim to prevent the misuse of judicial process. The order follows precedent and is binding within the jurisdiction for similar procedural scenarios.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRM-M/59451/2025 of ARVINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER |
| CNR | PHHC011626382025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | SANJIV BERRY, JUDGE |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | SHEEL NAGU, Chief Justice and SANJIV BERRY, Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction for procedural aspects |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Inherent Powers); Procedural Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether costs can be imposed when a petition is withdrawn after arguments—especially when the court’s time has already been spent in a matter invoked under inherent powers. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court is entitled to impose costs when a petition, after being substantially heard, is withdrawn, as precious judicial time has been consumed which could have been devoted to more pressing matters. This discourages frivolous, dilatory, or careless litigation and upholds the efficiency of the judicial process. The imposition of costs, to be deposited with the Bar Association, acts as a deterrent against unnecessary occupation of the court’s time. The withdrawal, subject to costs, is recognized as within the court’s discretionary powers and in line with established judicial norms. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner invoked the inherent powers of the court seeking relief against an order of a single judge. Arguments were heard. Before the court could dictate an order on merits, counsel for the petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition. The court noted its time had already been expended. Withdrawal was allowed subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the Bar Association. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar procedural issues |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court expressly imposes costs when petitions are withdrawn after hearings, to deter parties from engaging the court unnecessarily.
- Withdrawal after significant hearing will not automatically absolve petitioners from liability for costs.
- Orders of costs aim to preserve court resources and discourage procedural abuse.
- Costs are made payable to the Bar Association, highlighting the seriousness accorded to judicial time.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The bench noted that the petition, invoking the court’s inherent powers, had resulted in the court’s time being spent.
- At the stage when an order was to be dictated, the petitioner moved for withdrawal.
- Recognizing that valuable judicial resources were consumed needlessly, the court permitted withdrawal but imposed costs.
- The rationale is to deter parties from frivolously occupying judicial time and to uphold the court’s dignity and efficiency.
- The discretion to impose costs in such scenarios is consistent with established practice and is applied to protect the public interest in the efficient functioning of the judiciary.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought transfer of a criminal case/order and invoked the inherent powers of the High Court.
- Sought withdrawal of the petition at the stage when the order was to be rendered.
State (Punjab)
- No explicit arguments recorded in the judgment beyond presence of counsel.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a petition under the inherent powers of the High Court, seeking relief against an order passed by a single judge in a criminal case. The matter was argued at length. Just as the bench was to dictate its order on the merits, counsel for the petitioner orally requested withdrawal of the petition. The court noted the use of its time and resources. The petition was allowed to be withdrawn but subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment was rendered in exercise of the court’s “inherent powers,” but does not cite or interpret any specific statutory section in detail.
- The court emphasizes its authority to regulate its own process and protect its time and resources in procedural matters.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded; both judges concurred.
Procedural Innovations
- Imposition of costs payable directly to the Bar Association as a consequence of withdrawal after arguments, thereby underlining the importance the court attaches to preserving judicial resources.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing norms regarding imposition of costs for frivolous or late-stage withdrawals are reiterated.