Allahabad High Court
Nand Kishor vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 19 April, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2986 of 2023
Petitioner :- Nand Kishor
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raghvendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A.
For the order proposed to be passed this Court feels it unnecessary to issue notice to private opposite party no.5.
This petition has been filed with the following main prayer :-
i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.2 to 4 to take legal action against the opposite party no.5 to 8.
ii. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.2 to 4 specially opposite party no.4 to register the First Information Report against the opposite party no.5 to 8.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR has not been registered by the police authorities despite the petitioner repeatedly approaching them and also filed application in this regard to the Supdt of Police on 27.3.2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon?ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, wherein it has been observed that a police officer cannot avoid his duty for registering an offence if in the application cognizable offences discloses and in case they avoid such responsibility, an action to be taken against the erring Officer under Section 161-A of the CrPC or Departmental Proceedings be initiated and such proceedings can be taken against erring officer in not registering the FIR.
Learned A.G.A. has also 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?s case (supra), this Court expressed its opinion that the informant has statutory remedy under Section 156 (3) CrPC or under Section 200 CrPC. The paragraph 45 of the said judgment is being quoted hereinbelow :-
?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 CrPC can be denied to the informant/ victim for non-availing of alternative remedy under Sections 154 CrPC can be denied to the informant/ victim for non-availing of alternative remedy under Sections 154 (3), 156(3), 190 and 200 CrPC unless the four exceptions enumerated in decision of Apex Court in 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 the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of India and Others 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 CrPC without availing alternative remedy under Section 154 (3), 156 (3), 190 and 200 CrPC.
3. The informant/ victim after furnishing first information regarding cognizable offence does nto become functus officio for seeking writ of mandamus for compelling the police authorities to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 CrPC 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 226of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 CrPC.
This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-lodging of the FIR, therefore, he has appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 156 (3) CrPC or under Section 200 of the CrPC.
This petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.4.2023
mks
