Allahabad High Court
Tahreem Bano vs Superintendent Of Police District ... on 10 June, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35244-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5073 of 2025
Petitioner :- Tahreem Bano
Respondent :- Superintendent Of Police District Sultanpur And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla,Skand Bajpai
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant petition has been preferred seeking following main reliefs:-
"A. Allow this petition and pass an order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the 1st Respondent (Superintendent of Police District Sultanpur) to forthwith lodge First Information Report against the 4th Respondent (Mohd. Tarik) based on the petitioner's letter dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure-1 from page 16 to 23) and conduct fair and scientific investigation the matter in a time bound manner,
B. Allow this petition and pass an order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the state respondents to ensure deletion of the petitioner's private data from the gadgets of the accused 4th respondent and all intermediaries. significant intermediaries, social media, and cloud storage platforms in a time bound manner and tender the compliance report before this Hon'ble Court,
C. Allow this petition and pass an order(s) or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioner damages/compensation for violation of her rights under Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India;
D. Pass an order(s) or direction(s) commanding the office/registry of this Hon'ble Court to mask the name and particulars of the petitioner in the case record to ensure protection of her identity, and-
E. Allow this petition and pass an order(s) awarding the cost of this litigation in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, directing them to pay the same to the petitioner in a time bound manner."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had attempted to lodge the first information report against the concerned but no heed was paid and the F.I.R. was not lodged. The petitioner also moved an application to the Authorities concerned dated 01.04.2025, but till date FIR has not been lodged.
4. The 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. 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 Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (supra), whereby 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. 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. Considering the aforesaid as above, Section 175 of B.N.S.S., akin to Section 156 Cr.P.C. and Section 223 of B.N.S.S., akin to Section 200 Cr.P.C., this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition for the relief(s) sought, quoted above, and accordingly it is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner, if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-lodging of the FIR, to avail the appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 175 of B.N.S.S. or under Section 223 of B.N.S.S.
7. This writ petition stands disposed of.
[Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.] [Saurabh Lavania,J.]
Order Date :- 10.6.2025
A.Nigam
