Allahabad High Court
Akash Kumar Rajpoot vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others on 24 April, 2025
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62776-DB
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1177 of 2025
Petitioner :- Akash Kumar Rajpoot
Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishika Raj Singhal,Shivendra Raj Singhal
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for State.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to lodge the First Information Report pertaining to the incident dated 08.11.2024, in compliance of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated06.07.2015 as well as the in consonance with the notification dated 26.12.2015.
(ii) To issue any other suitable writ, order of direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iii) To award the cost of the petition to the Petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the petition are that on 08.11.2024 at about 07:00 p.m., the petitioner was present at Turabnagar Market, Ghaziabad, for purchasing clothes. He was stopped by 8-10 police personnels, who threatened him and harassed him knowing that he is an advocate. They threatened him on the basis of occurrence which had taken in District- Ghaziabad , prior to the aforesaid incident. They directed the petitioner to sit inside the police vehicle. Thereafter, he was manhandled at police station and after being released from the police station, he submitted applications before the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 who are Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, Assistant Commissioner of Police, P.S- Kotwali Nagar, District Court- Ghaziabad and S.H.O., P.S.- Kotwali Nagar, District- Ghaziabad, respectively, but nothing was done.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per section 154 Cr.P.C., as well as section 173 B.N.S.S., on receiving an information relating to commission of cognizable offence, police is required to reduce in writing the said information and the substance thereof is required to be entered into the book kept in the police station and there is no provision for refusing registration of information of commission of cognizable offence. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and Others AIR 2014 (SC) 187 , and submitted F.I.R. ought to have been registered on the basis of applications given by the petitioner to the respondent nos. 2, and 3. The remedy under section 156(3) Cr.p.C./ 175(3) B.N.S.S., is over burdening the courts and, therefore, the F.I.R. of the petitioners should have been registered by the police.
5. Learned AGA has submitted that the petitioner is a lawyer and has filed this writ petition only to assert his position against police. He has further submitted that the petitioner can always avail the remedy provided under section 156(3) Cr.P.C./175(3) B.N.S.S.
6. After hearing the rival contentions, first of all look at the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lalit Kumar (supra) deserves consideration.
7. The Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra) has outlined the law with regard to the registration of F.I.R. The relevant portion of the judgment is reiterated herein under:
"120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks' time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.13120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above."
8. The Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,(2015) 4 SCC 108 further clarified certain aspects in relation to the registration of F.I.R. where, primarily, dispute is of a commercial nature or as if somebody is determined to settle the personal score by taking undue advantage of criminal courts and thus, observed:
"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440, that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR 2008 SC 907] because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.
3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation."
9. A principled and really aggrieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which warrants the application of judicial mind. It protects the citizens. This provision serves to safeguard citizens' rights; however, when malicious litigations are pursued to harass fellow citizens, measures should be taken to thwart such abuse. The situation can be viewed from a different perspective.
10. When the complainant is lawyer, the pivotal role of a lawyer hinges upon their integrity and professional conduct. Justice Krishna Aiyar, speaking for the bench in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabolkar 1976 AIR 242, highlighted that a lawyer's primary duty is to administer justice, which entails adhering meticulously to ethical standards to maintain the community's trust in him as custodians of justice. "Law is not a commodity to be traded in briefs; it transcends no merchandise."
11. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] (2) SCR 359 the Supreme Court was of the view that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has the discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court should not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy as has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of the act is challenged.
12. A writ of mandamus seeking to compel the police to fulfil its statutory obligation under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. may be refused to the complainant he has not first pursued alternative remedies available under Section/s 154(3), 156(3), 190, and 200 of the Cr.P.C., unless the complainant falls within the four exceptions outlined in the case of Whirlpool Corporation (supra).
13. Lalita Kumari's case (supra) does not pertains to the issue of entertainment of writ of mandamus for compelling the police to perform its statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C. without availing alternative remedy under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. Moreover, it was not a case Under Article 226 of the Constitution, where alternative remedy was exhausted by the complainant or the writ petition was filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or; where there had been violation of the principle of natural justice or; where the order or proceedings as a whole was without jurisdiction, or the vires of an Act was challenged.
14. In view of the above considerations, this writ petition cannot be entertained. .
15.Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2025
Abhishek
