Allahabad High Court
Jay Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 28 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. - 3318 of 2023
Petitioner :- Jay Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sachida Nand,Bijay Raj Verma,Jyoti Rajpoot
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA who appears on behalf of State-respondents and perused the record.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to register the F.I.R. of the petitioner against the opposite party nos. 4 to 8 in the matter as well as to take necessary coercive action against them and to direct the opposite party no. 2 to decide the representation/application dated 17.2.2023.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's uncle, opposite party no. 4 has committed fraud in selling of more than their admitted share of land belonging to the petitioner's father and the said uncle. Initially, the petitioner approached the civil court and got the sale deed cancel but it took several years to get relief. After such cancellation of sale deed, the opposite party no. 4, his uncle has again sought out more land stand was his admitted share to the opposite party nos. 5 to 8 who are threatening the petitioner and trying to dispossess him from his land. The petitioner gave several applications under the Integrated Grievance Redressal System but till date no FIR has been lodged in the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case, has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 in which the Court 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 161-A of Cr.P.C. 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' case (supra), 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 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 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 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".
There is no pleading on record that the petitioner went to the police station to get FIR lodged and the same was not lodged. The pleadings are limited to the effect that the petitioner sent several application to the Integrated Grievance Redressal System but no FIR was lodged.
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction the petitioner to approach the police station concerned or Superintendent of Police concerned in case his application for lodging FIR is not entertained at the police station and he has also a remedy of filing a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 28.4.2023
AKK
