Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. ... on 12 October, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:66655-DB
Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7924 of 2023
Petitioner :- Kamlesh Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijai Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. who appears for the State-respondents.
2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-
"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.3 not to harass the petitioner in pursuance of the compromise dated 4.9.2023, and also stopped the opp. Party no.4 not to hares the petitioner, as contained in Annexure no.1 to this writ petition."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner make online complaint for lodging the F.I.R. then opposite party no.4 in connivance with the local police make pressure upon the petitioner for making compromise.
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 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 FIR.
5. 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' 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".
6. This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-lodging of the F.I.R., the petitioner has appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
7. This writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.10.2023
Madhu
