Disposed¶25

Pankaj Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2025/11737/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-registration of FIR; writ of mandamus to compel police to perform statutory duty; alternative remedy; complaint under Section 175 BNSS 2023; complaint under Section 223 BNSS 2023; Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190, 200 Cr.P.C.; Lalita Kumari (2014) 2 SCC 1; Waseem Haider (2021) 2 ADJ 86 : 2020 SCC OnLine All 1866; Whirlpool Corporation exceptions; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; representation dated 29.11.2025; Mohd. Jeeshan Khan; harassment; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus or other substantive relief granted; the writ petition was disposed of with the Court pointing the petitioner to the alternative statutory remedies of filing a complaint under Sections 175 and 223 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. ¶25

Pankaj Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue commanding the respondents to take timely action on the petitioner's representation dated 29.11.2025, to take action against Mohd. Jeeshan Khan in accordance with law, and to stop the harassment of the petitioner, in circumstances where the FIR sought by the petitioner was not lodged despite complaints.

¶12

Court's answer

If the petitioner is aggrieved by non-lodging of the F.I.R., he has the appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 175 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 or under Section 223 of the B.N.S.S., 2023; on this basis the writ petition was disposed of rather than a mandamus issued.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (LUCKNOW BENCH), Division Bench (Abdul Moin and Babita Rani, JJ.) — Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11737 of 2025, decided December 12, 2025 — Mandamus for registration of FIR and action against named individual refused; petition disposed of. The petitioner alleged that his attempt to lodge an FIR failed, that several complaints and applications to competent authorities went unheeded, and that no action was taken on his representation dated 29.11.2025; he sought a writ of mandamus for timely action thereon, action against Mohd. Jeeshan Khan, and stoppage of his harassment. The Court noted the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, on the duty to register cognizable offences, and the Division Bench decision of that Court in Waseem Haider v. State of U.P., (2021) 2 ADJ 86 : 2020 SCC OnLine All 1866, holding that the informant has statutory remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. Holding that a person aggrieved by non-lodging of an FIR has the appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 175 or Section 223 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, the Court disposed of the writ petition without issuing mandamus.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11737 of 2025

Pankaj Gautam

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mirza Humayun Qadar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 11

¶10

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for all the respondents.

¶12

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take timely action on the representation of the petitioner dated 29.11.2025 and to take action against Mohd. Jeeshan Khan in accordance with law and also to stop the harassment of the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that 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 several complaints and applications before the competent authorities but till date FIR has not been lodged.

¶14

The Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, (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 F.I.R.

¶15

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, (2021) 2 ADJ 86: 2020 SCC OnLine ALL

¶16

CRLP No. 11737 of 2025

¶17

¶18

1866 , 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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."

¶24

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 175 of B.N.S.S., 2023 or under Section 223 of B.N.S.S. 2023.

¶25

7 . Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

December 12, 2025 S. Shivhare

¶27

(Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pankaj Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pavan Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Jyoti and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Naveen Babbar @ Gama Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Anita Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Shashank Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Rani Manjhi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Others