Disposed

Santosh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Dec 2024CRLP/9998/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition where the petitioner sought mandamus to compel registration of an FIR. Relying on statutory remedies under Sections 156(3) and 200 Cr.P.C., the Court held the writ was not maintainable as appropriate remedy exists.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without granting the direction to register FIR.

Santosh Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:86368-DB

¶2

Court No. - 10

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9998 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Santosh Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Nath Tripahti Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer :-

¶8

"1. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the opposite party no.1 to 3 to register the First Information Report against the opposite party no.4, in the interest of justice."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had attempted to lodge the first information report, but no heed was paid and the F.I.R. was not lodged. The petitioner also moved an application to the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow on 04.12.2024 but till date FIR has not been lodged.

¶10

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.

¶11

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

¶12

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:-

¶13

"45. Before parting, the conclusion arrived at based on the above discussion and analysis is delineated below for ready reference and convenience :-

¶14

(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 nonavailing 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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."

¶18

This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-lodging of the FIR, he has appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 175 of B.N.S.S., 2023) or under Section 200 Cr.P.C (now Section 223 of B.N.S.S., 2023).

¶19

This writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.12.2024 Arti/-

¶21

[Om Prakash Shukla,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.]

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ARTI MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko and Others

Smt. Gudiya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Others

Udai Raj Verma and Another vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Finance New Delhi and 4 Others

Rashid Ali Siddiqi and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ramendra Kumar Misra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Puja @ Puja Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others