Nijamuddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2025CRLP/6395/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ of mandamus for FIR registration denied; alternative remedies under Sections 156(3) and 200 Cr.P.C. held to be available; Lalita Kumari distinguished; Waseem Haider followed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner has appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and the writ petition stands disposed of. ¶¶17

Nijamuddin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41586-DB

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6395 of 2025 Petitioner :- Nijamuddin Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Garima Singh,Harshit Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

(1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. who appears for the State-respondents.

¶6

(2) This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following main prayer: -

¶7

"a. a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties nos. 2 & 3 to immediately register a First Information Report (FIR) against opposite parties nos. 4 to 6 and others involved in misappropriation of public funds, forging government documents, and criminal intimidation, based on the complaints already submitted by the petitioner;"

¶8

(3) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner moved application dated 10.07.2025 to opposite party nos.2 and 3 against accused persons, but till date the F.I.R. has not been lodged by the police station concerned.

¶9

(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 , wherein it has been 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.

¶10

(5) Learned A.G.A. 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 case of Lalita Kumari (supra) ,

¶11

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:-

¶12

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

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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..

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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."

¶17

(6) 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. or under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

¶18

(7) This writ petition stands disposed of .

¶19

( Subhash Vidyarthi,J. ) ( Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. )

¶20

Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Preeti.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nijamuddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nijamuddin v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Vivek Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Ms. a Victim Case Crime No. 48/2025 (Minor ) Thru. Smt. X / Mother , in Case Crime No. 48/2025 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Rameshwer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rameshwer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sameer and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Triloki Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others