Frivolous Litigation in India: Costs & Consequences

If you file a case you know to be false, or drag someone through court only to harass them, you are not just wasting the court's time. You can be ordered to pay heavy costs, prosecuted for giving false evidence, and sued for malicious prosecution. Frivolous litigation in India is treated by the courts as an abuse of the process of court, and the consequences fall on the person who started it. This guide sets out, in plain language, what counts as a frivolous or false case, what the Code of Civil Procedure and the new criminal codes actually allow a court to do about it, what the exercise costs on both sides, and what an honest litigant on the receiving end should do.

This matters whether you are tempted to use a court to put pressure on someone, or you are the person being targeted by a baseless complaint. Both situations are common, and both have clear legal answers.

What counts as frivolous litigation or a false case

There is no single statutory definition. Courts use the term for litigation that has no genuine legal basis and is pursued for an improper purpose. In practice it covers:

• Vexatious suits, filed mainly to harass, delay or pressure the other side rather than to obtain genuine relief.
• False complaints, criminal complaints or first information reports built on facts the complainant knows to be untrue.
• Repetitive or speculative litigation, re-agitating what has already been decided, or filing on facts with no supporting material at all.
• Abuse of process, using a genuine legal procedure for a collateral motive, such as extracting money, forcing a settlement or settling personal scores.
• Fabricated pleadings and documents, where the case itself may be arguable but the material placed before the court is manufactured or the record is deliberately suppressed.
• Counterblast cases, filed only in answer to proceedings begun by the other side, with no independent factual foundation.

A weak case that is honestly brought is not frivolous. People lose cases every day without any penalty beyond ordinary costs, and the law does not want litigants frightened out of arguable claims. The line is crossed when the litigant is dishonest, or when the proceeding has no foundation at all and is meant to abuse the system rather than to invoke it.

The money consequence: what the Code of Civil Procedure allows

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 gives a civil court three distinct costs powers, and it is worth understanding why the middle one is largely a dead letter.

Section 35, costs generally. Costs of and incident to all suits are in the discretion of the court, and the court decides by and out of what property and to what extent they are to be paid. Ordinarily costs follow the event, and where the court orders otherwise it must record reasons. For commercial disputes of a specified value Section 35 was substituted by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016, Section 16 and the Schedule, with effect from 23 October 2015), and in that substituted form it is much sharper: the court decides whether costs are payable, how much, and when; costs expressly include witness fees and expenses, legal fees and expenses, and other expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings; and the general rule is stated to be that the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party, with any departure to be reasoned in writing. Section 35(3) in that substituted form then directs the court, in making an order for costs, to have regard to the conduct of the parties, whether a party succeeded on part of its case, whether a party made a frivolous counterclaim leading to delay in disposal, whether a reasonable offer to settle was made and unreasonably refused, and whether the party made a frivolous claim and instituted a vexatious proceeding wasting the court's time. The illustration to the section makes the point bluntly: a plaintiff who wins his money decree can still be made to pay costs for having raised a frivolous and vexatious claim for damages alongside it.

Section 35A, compensatory costs for false or vexatious claims and defences. This is the provision people expect to do the work, and it does not. It applies where a party objects that the claim or defence is false or vexatious to the knowledge of the party who put it forward, and that claim or defence is then disallowed, abandoned or withdrawn. The court must record reasons for holding it false or vexatious. But Section 35A(2) caps the award at three thousand rupees, or the limits of the court's pecuniary jurisdiction, whichever is less. That figure was last raised by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 35A also excludes appeals and revisions from its scope. A cap fixed in 1976 is not a deterrent in 2026, which is precisely why courts have moved elsewhere.

Section 35B, costs for causing delay. Where a party fails to take a step it was required to take on a date fixed, or takes an adjournment to take that step or produce evidence, the court may order that party to pay the other side costs reasonably sufficient to reimburse the expense of attending court that day. The teeth are in the mechanism rather than the amount: payment on the next date is a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the suit by a plaintiff who has been so ordered, or of the defence by a defendant who has been so ordered.

The Code gives a civil court three costs powers, plus a sharper version for commercial disputes.

Why the real figures are much larger than Section 35A

Because the statutory cap is unusable, superior courts have used their general costs jurisdiction and their inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code to award realistic and, where the conduct warrants it, exemplary costs. Three decisions map the position.

In Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, decided by the Supreme Court on 4 July 2011, the court issued a set of directions to trial courts on how civil trials should be run. Among them, it said in terms that the imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs, and where appropriate the ordering of prosecution, would go a long way in controlling the tendency of litigants to introduce false pleadings and forged or fabricated documents, and that heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments. The judgment records the criticism that uncalled for litigation is encouraged in India precisely because courts do not impose realistic costs, so that the successful party usually goes uncompensated.

In Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar, decided on 1 March 2017, the Supreme Court dealt with litigants who had already obtained a year to vacate premises, obtained a further four months, and then filed a review and sought an extension of five years. The court described frivolous and groundless filings as a serious menace to the administration of justice, said that they consume time and clog the infrastructure, and observed that exemplary costs are inevitable and even necessary so that there is no premium on untruth in litigation. It quantified costs at rupees five lakh payable to the respondents within two months, and clarified that this did not affect the contempt proceedings already initiated.

In Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, decided on 6 May 2014, the Supreme Court recorded that the Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation, and pointed out that on the other side of every irresponsible claim there is an innocent person who pays for the litigation out of his savings or borrowings and loses time that should have gone to his work or his family. The court asked whether such a litigant should not be compensated, and suggested that the legislature apply its mind to the problem.

The practical upshot. Do not assess your exposure by reading Section 35A and its cap of three thousand rupees. Assess it by asking what a court that follows Ramrameshwari Devi and Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik would do with your conduct. Costs in the lakhs are ordered on the civil side, and constitutional courts also order costs to be paid to a legal services authority rather than to the opposite party where the abuse is of the court itself.

The criminal consequence: false evidence and false charges

Filing a false case or lying in court is itself an offence. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the numbering has changed, so both sets of numbers are given below.

Section 248 is the provision that squarely fits a fabricated criminal complaint, and the graded punishment in clause (b) is the reason a false allegation of a grave offence is treated so much more seriously than a false allegation of a petty one. Section 217 is the lighter offence used where false information is given to the police or another public servant, rather than a formal false charge being laid. Note the procedural gate on it: Section 215(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 bars a court from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 206 to 223 of the Sanhita, other than Section 209, except on the written complaint of the public servant concerned or a public servant administratively superior to or authorised by him. So a Section 217 prosecution is set in motion by the misled public servant, not by the person who was harmed.

How a court actually sets a perjury case in motion

You cannot simply walk into a police station and lodge a complaint of perjury committed in a court case. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and Section 215 of that Sanhita, which corresponds to Section 195 of the old Code, bars a court from taking cognizance of the specified offences against public justice and offences relating to documents given in evidence except on the written complaint of the court concerned, or an officer that court authorises in writing, or some other court to which it is subordinate. Section 215(1)(b) is the relevant limb, and it captures offences under Sections 229 to 233, 236, 237, 242 to 248 and 267 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 when they are alleged to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in any court, which takes in both the false evidence offences and a false charge under Section 248. Section 379, which corresponds to Section 340 of the old Code, prescribes the procedure.

1. Apply to the court where the false evidence was given, or wait for that court to act on its own motion. The application sets out the specific statement or document said to be false, and the material that shows it to be false.
2. The court holds a preliminary inquiry, if it thinks one is necessary, into the offence said to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding before it.
3. The court forms an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made. This is the real gate. Courts do not order prosecution merely because two versions conflict; they require a deliberate falsehood on a material point.
4. The court records a finding to that effect and makes a complaint in writing.
5. The complaint is sent to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction, and the court may take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused, or if the offence is non-bailable and it thinks necessary, send the person in custody to the Magistrate.
6. The Magistrate proceeds on the complaint as on any other complaint case. If the court refuses to make a complaint, or makes one against you, Section 380 of the Sanhita gives a right of appeal to the court to which that court is subordinate, and the superior court can direct the complaint to be withdrawn or direct that it be made.

The practical point is that perjury proceedings are a request to the court, not a right of the aggrieved party, and they move at the pace the court sets. They are worth pursuing where a document has been forged or an affidavit is demonstrably false on a material point. They are usually a distraction where the falsehood is a matter of degree or recollection.

Frivolous case vs genuine but weak case, at a glance

Killing a false case early

The cheapest defence to a baseless case is the one that ends it before evidence. The main threshold routes are these.

• Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rejection of plaint. The plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action, where the relief is undervalued and the valuation is not corrected, where the plaint is insufficiently stamped and the stamp paper is not supplied, or where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint itself to be barred by any law. The court looks only at the plaint and its documents, so this works best where the falsity is apparent on the face of the case rather than requiring proof.
• Section 151 of the Code, inherent powers. Nothing in the Code limits the inherent power of the court to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. This is the source of the realistic costs orders described above.
• Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, saving of inherent powers of the High Court. This corresponds to Section 482 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure and preserves the High Court's power to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is the provision under which a manifestly false first information report or complaint is quashed.
• Discharge, on the criminal side, where the material does not disclose sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. This is the ordinary route where the complaint is weak rather than obviously mala fide, and it is often faster than a quashing petition.

The civil remedy for the victim: malicious prosecution

If you were dragged through a baseless criminal case and won, you may have a separate civil claim in tort for malicious prosecution. To succeed you generally must prove all of the following:

1. The defendant prosecuted you, that is, set the criminal law in motion against you;
2. The prosecution ended in your favour, by acquittal, discharge or quashing;
3. There was no reasonable and probable cause for it;
4. The defendant acted with malice, meaning an improper motive rather than a genuine desire to bring an offender to justice; and
5. You suffered damage, to reputation, to person, or in money.

This is a high bar and the burden sits on the person who was prosecuted. Two practical points are usually decisive. First, an acquittal on benefit of doubt is much weaker evidence of absence of reasonable and probable cause than a discharge or a quashing on the ground that the allegations were baseless, so the terms of the order that ended the prosecution matter enormously. Second, the limitation is short: Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963 gives one year for a suit for compensation for malicious prosecution, running from the date the plaintiff is acquitted or the prosecution is otherwise terminated. Many good claims are lost simply by waiting.

Deadline warning. A suit for malicious prosecution must be filed within one year under Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963, running from the acquittal or from the date the prosecution otherwise ended. That window starts the moment the criminal case ends, not when you decide to act on it. Good claims are regularly lost by waiting.

Four consequences can follow a case that is found to be false.

What it costs and how long it takes

The figures below are indicative planning ranges. Court fees are governed by the state legislation, which in Karnataka is the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, and professional fees vary with the forum, the seniority of counsel and the complexity of the matter.

The mistakes people actually make

• Filing a retaliatory case. The instinct to answer a false complaint with another one is understandable and almost always wrong. It converts a clean defence into a two front fight, gives the other side something to trade, and exposes you to exactly the costs and criminal consequences described above.
• Treating an acquittal as automatic proof of malice. It is not. A malicious prosecution suit needs absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice proved independently, and the wording of the acquittal order is often the best or the worst evidence you have.
• Missing the one year limitation in Article 74. Clients frequently come to us to sue for malicious prosecution years after the acquittal, by which time nothing can be done.
• Asking for perjury proceedings against every inconsistency. Courts will not order prosecution because a witness contradicted himself. Reserve the Section 379 application for a forged document or a demonstrably false affidavit on a material point, and put the falsity beyond argument before you apply.
• Not asking for costs. Costs are discretionary and courts award them far more readily when a party pleads and quantifies them, with a schedule of what was actually spent, rather than leaving it to the court to guess.
• Ignoring the case in the hope it goes away. An ex parte decree or a non bailable warrant obtained in your absence is far harder and far more expensive to undo than the original defence would have been.
• Destroying or editing evidence that seems unhelpful. Deleting messages or altering records converts a defensible position into an offence under Section 228 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• Overstating your own case in reply. The costs and perjury provisions bite both ways, and an exaggerated defence affidavit can end up being the document that undoes you.

What to do if a false case is filed against you

• Do not panic and do not ignore it. Engage early. Deadlines in court matter more than the merits at the beginning.
• Preserve evidence that shows the claim is false: messages, receipts, bank records, call data, CCTV, witnesses. Preserve it in its original form, and take a dated backup.
• Seek the right relief for the stage you are at. Depending on the forum and the stage, that may be rejection of the plaint, discharge, quashing, anticipatory bail, or simply a strong defence on the merits.
• Keep a running record of your losses. Fees paid, travel, days of work lost, and any documented reputational harm. This supports a costs order and, later, a malicious prosecution claim.
• Take advice before counter-filing. A retaliatory false case only multiplies your risk. Let the law work for you instead.

For court strategy on defending or pursuing such matters, see our civil litigation practice. Related reading: how to respond to a legal notice and getting an FIR quashed.

A note from practice

The gap between what the law permits and what courts actually order in these matters is wider than any other area we work in. Section 35A has been capped at three thousand rupees since 1976, and yet the Supreme Court has been saying since at least 2011 that courts must impose actual and realistic costs. What that means for a litigant on the ground is that outcomes are unusually judge dependent, and that the way the abuse is documented matters more than the label put on it. The applications that succeed are the ones that place the falsity beyond argument on paper, with a comparison chart of what was pleaded against what the record shows, and that ask for a specific quantified sum with a schedule of what the defence actually cost. The ones that fail are the ones that arrive as an accusation of dishonesty in the abstract. Courts are cautious about branding a litigant a liar, and rightly so, and they need the arithmetic done for them.

Frequently Asked Questions

Losing alone does not attract a penalty beyond ordinary costs. A penalty or exemplary costs arises only where the case was false, vexatious, or an abuse of the court's process.

On the civil side, compensatory and realistic costs. On the criminal side, giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence are punishable under Section 229 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with up to seven years and fine where the false evidence relates to a judicial proceeding, and a false charge of an offence made with intent to injure is punishable under Section 248 with up to five years, or fine up to two lakh rupees, or both, rising to ten years where the false charge is of a very grave offence. The other side may also sue you for malicious prosecution.

Yes. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 remains in force, including Sections 35, 35A and 35B. It is the criminal codes that changed: the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Section 35A caps compensatory costs at three thousand rupees or the court's pecuniary jurisdiction, whichever is less. There is no such cap on costs under Section 35 or on costs ordered in exercise of inherent powers, and the Supreme Court quantified costs at five lakh rupees in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik. In commercial disputes the substituted Section 35 expressly directs the court to consider whether a party made a frivolous or vexatious claim when fixing costs.

Possibly, through a suit for malicious prosecution, if you can prove the prosecution ended in your favour, lacked reasonable and probable cause, was driven by malice, and caused you damage. It is a demanding test, and Article 74 of the Limitation Act, 1963 gives you only one year from the acquittal or termination to file.

Yes. Courts have dismissed publicity oriented or profit oriented petitions with costs where they are not genuine public interest matters, and the reasoning in Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik about frivolous and groundless filings applies with full force to them.

Not reflexively. The safer course is usually to defend strongly and pursue costs or a proper remedy, on legal advice, rather than start fresh litigation that could itself be called frivolous.

No. Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which corresponds to Section 195 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, bars a court from taking cognizance of those offences except on the written complaint of the court in which the false evidence was given. The route is an application to that court under Section 379.

Costs are ordinarily ordered against the party. Courts have occasionally commented on the role of counsel in pursuing hopeless matters, but the order to pay is made against the litigant. Direct the costs plea at the person who set the litigation in motion, and plead the facts that show it was his decision.

Usually to the opposite party as compensation. Where the abuse is directed at the institution rather than at a private opponent, courts sometimes direct payment to a legal services authority or a similar body instead, so that the deterrent operates without giving the opponent a windfall.

Related guides and where to get help

If this is a live problem rather than background reading, our civil litigation practice handles these matters from Bengaluru, including for clients who cannot attend court in person. These guides go deeper on the neighbouring questions:

• Fake AI Citations in Indian Courts: What the Supreme Court's 2026 Ruling Means for Lawyers
• Execution of Decree in India: How to Actually Recover Money After Winning (2026)
• MACT Compensation Calculation in India: Multiplier Method, Tables and Real Examples (2026)