Allahabad High Court
Ajeet Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, ... on 25 May, 2024
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39978-DB
Court No. - 9
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3744 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrikant Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State/opposite parties and perused the record.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following main prayers :
"(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, passed by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, directing the Opposite Part No.2 & 3 (Superintendent of Police Sultanpur & Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya) to take necessary action on the Applications/Complaints of Petitioner dated 02/04/2024 & 24/04/2024) and direct the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Kurebhar District Sultanpur lodged the FIR against the Opposite Party (Shyam Bihari) (which is contained as Annexure No.7, 8 & 9 to the Writ Petition)."
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has paid Rs.13.00 Lakhs to the opposite party No.4 as advance for purchase of Hydra Crane bearing Registration No.UP91T8006 in the month of March, 2023 through RTGS and through Cheques and bank accounts against the total sale consideration of Rs.15.00 Lakhs and the possession of the said vehicle was handed over to the petitioner. It was agreed upon between the parties that opposite Party No.4 will pay the dues of HDB Financial Services and get the NOC obtained. Thereafter, the vehicle was to be transferred in the name of the petitioner. However, even after the repeated requests the NOC was not obtained. In the meantime, the vehicle met with an accident and an F.I.R. was registered and the Crane was seized by the police. Opposite party No.4 got the crane released in his favour but the vehicle has not been handed over to the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner moved several applications to the police authorities but the F.I.R. has not been lodged. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court by means of present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others; (2014) 2 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where a cognizable offence is made out in an application/representation by any person, then the respondents/police authorities are duty bound to register the F.I.R. However, no F.I.R. has been registered till date in the case of the petitioner.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. and others, Misc. Bench No.24492 of 2020: 2021 ADJ 86, wherein the Division Bench after considering the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others has observed in paragraph 45 that the informant/victim has remedy under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and writ petitions should ordinarily not be filed for seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to perform the statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C. This court has perused the paragraph 45 of the judgment as cited by the learned A.G.A. Shri S.N. Tilhari. Paragraph 45 of the judgment in Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) is 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 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 writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the competent court by filing an application under Sections 156 (3) Cr.P.C., if he is aggrieved by any inaction on the part of opposite party No. 4.
.
(Narendra Kumar Johari,J.) (Vivek Chaudhary,J.)
Order Date :- 25.5.2024
ML/-
