Ashok Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ...

HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard Sri Nirbhay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had attempted to lodge the First Information Report against the private opposite parties, but the F.I.R. was not lodged, hence this petition.

3. On preliminary objection being raised by learned A.G.A. that the petitioner has statutory and alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned for lodging the F.I.R. under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, therefore, this petition is not maintainable, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the same, however, he relies upon a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. and others; (2021) 2 ADJ 86.

4. In regard to the judgment rendered in the case of Waseem Haider (supra), learned A.G.A. submits that in that case also, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari versus State of U.P. & others; AIR 2014 SC 187, has observed in paragraph-45 that the informant/victim has remedy under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and writ petition 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. Paragraph 45 of the judgment in Waseem Haider (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."

5. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative and statutory remedy under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which may be availed by the petitioner.

(Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

May 6, 2026

Akanksha Sri/-