Disposed¶7

Rajendra Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. Others

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2025CRLP/6758/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus for FIR registration refused; writ petition disposed with pointer to complaint remedies under Section 156(3) and Section 200 Cr.P.C.; reliance on Waseem Haider (2021) 2 ADJ 86 para 45; Lalita Kumari (2014) 2 SCC 1 and Whirlpool (1998) 8 SCC 1 referred; Section 154 Cr.P.C. statutory police duty; Superintendent of Police Barabanki; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; order date 30.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; writ petition disposed of, the Court recording its opinion that the petitioners may file a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. ¶7

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43910-DB

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6758 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bare Lal Bhartiya,Pintoo Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers :-

¶8

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus commanding the opp. Party no. 3 to lodge the first information report in appropriate sections against the opposite party no. 4 to 8 and take legal action against the opposite party no. 4 to 8.

¶9

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opp. Parties no. 2 to take action against the opposite party no. 3 for disobedience of his mandatory legal duty."

¶10

3. It is the case of the petitioner that they tried to lodge an F.I.R. and also given an application to the Superintendent of Police, Barabanki on 17.06.2025, however, the F.I.R. was not lodged.

¶11

4. The Hon'ble 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

¶12

taken against the erring Officer under Section 166A of the I.P.C. or Departmental Proceedings be initiated and such proceedings can be taken against erring Officer in not registering the FIR.

¶13

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 Lalita Kumari' case (supra) , 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(4) The proposed accused against whom the first

¶19

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".

¶20

6. This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioners are aggrieved by non-lodging of the F.I.R., they have appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

7. This writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 30.7.2025 Mahesh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajendra Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. 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

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

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

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

Smt. Supriya Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Pushpa Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Muskan Alias Muskan Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others