Disposed¶18

Ziyauddin and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC28 Jul 2025CRLP/6733/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus to compel FIR lodging refused; alternative statutory remedy via complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. / Section 200 Cr.P.C.; precedents cited: Lalita Kumari (2014) 2 SCC 1, Waseem Haider (2021) 2 ADJ 86 (Division Bench, Allahabad HC), Whirlpool Corporation (1998) 8 SCC 1; petitioner Ziyauddin v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; decided 28.7.2025; FIR not lodged despite 20.05.2025 application to Additional Commissioner of Police, Lucknow.

What did the court decide?

None — the prayed-for mandamus was not issued; the Court pointed the petitioner to filing a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. ¶18

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43398-DB

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6733 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ziyauddin And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 2 and 3 to lodge the First Information Report against opposite party no.5 to 9."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had attempted to lodge the first information report against the respondent nos.5 to 9, but no heed was paid and the F.I.R. was not lodged. The petitioners also moved an application to the Additonal Commissioner of Police, East Commissionerate, Lucknow on 20.05.2025 but till date no FIR has 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 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:-

¶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

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

This writ petition stands disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 28.7.2025 Pks

¶20

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ziyauddin and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ziyauddin and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 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

Lalit @ Lalit Prakash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. and 3 Others

Tavsum Khatun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Mukesh Srivastava @ Gyanendra Pratap vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Nirmala vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Baliram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others