Allahabad High Court
Tribhuvan Datt vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief ... on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:34655-DB
Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3784 of 2023
Petitioner :- Tribhuvan Datt
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy., Deptt. Of Home, Lko., And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Srivastava,Yogesh Somvanshi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
(1) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. who appears for the State-respondent nos.1 to 6.
(2) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following main prayer:-
"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby directing and commanding the opposite parties to perform their legal obligation as conferred under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and ensure that the complaint of the petitioner be taken up as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, in accordance with law."
(3) It is the case of the petitioner that he tried to lodge an FIR in Police Station Asandra, District Barabanki, and also sent an application to the Local police on 19.04.2023 regarding cognizable offence committed by the accused, however, the FIR was not lodged.
(4) 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 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.
(5) The petitioner has moved an application to the Opposite party nos.2 & 3 to take necessary action against the Opposite party nos.4 & 5 in pursuance of the Guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(6) 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".
(7) 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) Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
(8) This writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023
N.PAL
