Raj Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Divya Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents as well as perused the material placed on record.

This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers :- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to make fair investigation withy any political pressure to recover the body of the Shiv Kumar son of Ram Das or alive Shiv Kumar under the custody of the bad elements. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to provide safety of the petitioner's family with the property and life of the petitioner form the bad elements. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing the opposite parties to register the first information report on the basis of G.D. No. 40 dated 17-05-2025 against unknown persons and make investigation and after making investigation to arrest the guilty persons and submit reports before the court expeditiously, to meet the ends of justice.."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner 2 CRLP No. 9533 of 2025 had attempted to lodge the first information report against unknown persons but no heed was paid and the F.I.R. was not lodged. The petitioner also moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Lucknow on 30.06.2025 and 15.07.2025, but till date F.I.R. has not been lodged.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, has observed that a Police Officer cannot avoid his duty for registering an offence if in the application cognizable offence discloses and in case they avoid such responsibility, an action to be taken against the erring Officer under Section 166-A of the I.P.C. or Departmental Proceedings be initiated and such proceedings can be taken against erring Officer in not registering the F.I.R.

Learned A.G.A. has pointed out that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2021) 2 ADJ 86, to say that after considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Lalita Kumari (supra), whereby this Court expressed its opinion that the informant has statutory remedy under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The Paragraph-45 of the said judgment is being quoted herein below:- "45. Before parting, the conclusion arrived at based on the above discussion and analysis is delineated below for ready reference and convenience :- (1) Writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform its statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C can be denied to the informant/victim for non-availing of alternative remedy under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C., unless the four exceptions enumerated in decision of Apex Court in the the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1, come to rescue of the informant / victim. (2) The verdict of Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 does not pertain to issue of entitlement to writ of mandamus for compelling the police to perform statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C without 3 CRLP No. 9533 of 2025 availing alternative remedy under Section 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. (3) The informant/victim after furnishing first information regarding cognizable offence does not become functus officio for seeking writ of mandamus for compelling the police authorities to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C in case the FIR is not lodged. (4) The proposed accused against whom the first information of commission of cognizable offence is made, is not a necessary party to be impleaded in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C".

This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-lodging of the F.I.R., he has appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. October 10, 2025 Mahesh (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench