Mithilesh Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Others

2. This petition seeks issuance of direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 and 3 to register the FIR against opposite party nos.4 to 10 in the light of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and another; 2014 (2) SCC 1.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had attempted to lodge the First Information Report against the private opposite parties, but the F.I.R. was not lodged, hence this petition.

¶14

4. On preliminary objection being raised by learned A.G.A. that the petitioner has statutory and alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned for lodging the F.I.R. under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksh Sanhita, 2023, therefore, this petition is not maintainable, learned Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the same, however, he relies upon a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. and others; (2021) 2 ADJ 86 .

¶15

5. In regard to the judgment rendered in the case of Waseem Haider (supra) , learned A.G.A. submits that in that case also, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) , has observed in

¶16

CRLP No. 2108 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

paragraph-45 that the informant/victim has remedy under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and writ petition should ordinarily not be filed for seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to perform the statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Paragraph 45 of the judgment in Waseem Haider (supra) is quoted herein below:-

¶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

5. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative and statutory remedy under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which may be availed by the petitioner.

¶25

(Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶26

March 10, 2026 Akanksha Sri/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mithilesh Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 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

Similar cases

Meeraj Hussain and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Shailendra Kumar Mishra @ Banwari and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Enugu Raji Reddy vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Sabana Khatun and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Others

Roshan Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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