Allahabad High Court
Ram Kumar Singh @ Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 10 October, 2025
Author: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:62865-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9257 of 2025
Ram Kumar Singh @ Ram Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Shyam Bahadur
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents as well as perused the material placed on record.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices to respondent nos.5 to 7 are hereby dispensed with.
3. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer :-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the opposite party no-2 i. e. The Director General of Police, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and opposite party no- 3 i. e. The Superintendent of Police, District- Raebareli to adopt legal action against the opposite party no- 4 i. e. The Station Officer of Police Station- Harchandpur, District- Raebareli for not registering the Petitioner's First Information Report, in respect of his murdered Son, in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court Judgement Lalita Kumari versus State of U. P. (2013) 14 S.C.R. 713, in the interest of Justice.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing to the opposite party no- 3 i.e. The Superintendent of Police, District- Raebareli, for registering a First Information Report at concerned Police Station- Harchandpur District- Raebareli against the opposite party no- 5 to 7 (Gudiya, Pinky and Niteesh Kumar) for committing Murder of Petitioner's Son Akhilesh Singh as prayed in application dated- 11/09/2025, contained in Annexure No- 1, in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court Judgement Lalita Kumari versus State of U. P. (2013) 14 S.C.R. 713, in the interest of Justice."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had attempted to lodge the first information report against the respondent nos.5 to 7 but no heed was paid and the F.I.R. was not lodged. The petitioner also moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, District Raibareli on 11.09.2025, but till date F.I.R. has not been lodged.
5. 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 F.I.R.
6. Learned A.G.A. has produced before this Court the instructions dated 10.10.2025, sent by Sub Inspector, Police Station Harchandpur, Raibareli, which is taken on record. He 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 (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. The Paragraph-45 of the said judgment is being 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".
7. This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-lodging of the F.I.R., 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. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.)
October 10, 2025
Mahesh
