Disposed¶23

Monika v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC11 May 2026CRLP/4274/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR registration; writ of mandamus; alternative remedy; Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.; Section 200 Cr.P.C.; Section 154 Cr.P.C.; Section 173(4) BNSS 2023; Section 223 BNSS 2023; Article 226 Constitution of India; Lalita Kumari (2014) 2 SCC 1; Waseem Haider (2021) 2 ADJ 86 : 2020 SCC OnLine ALL 1866; Whirlpool Corporation (1998) 8 SCC 1; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Monika v. State of U.P.; 2026; police inaction; complaint case.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus or direction issued; writ petition disposed of with the observation that the petitioner's appropriate remedy is a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., 2023) or under Section 200 Cr.P.C. (now Section 223 of B.N.S.S., 2023). ¶23

Monika vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued commanding respondent no. 2 to take appropriate decision for registering the F.I.R. on the petitioner's application dated 14.04.2026, or whether the petitioner ought to pursue the alternative remedies of a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., 2023) or under Section 200 Cr.P.C. (now Section 223 of B.N.S.S., 2023).

¶10

Court's answer

If the petitioner is aggrieved by non-lodging of the F.I.R., her appropriate remedy is to file a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., 2023) or under Section 200 Cr.P.C. (now Section 223 of B.N.S.S., 2023); on this basis the writ petition was disposed of without issuance of any mandamus.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4274 of 2026, decided 11-05-2026 (Abdul Moin and Pramod Kumar Srivastava, JJ.) — Registration of F.I.R. — Writ of mandamus — Alternative remedy. The petitioner sought a mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 to take a decision on registering an F.I.R. on her application dated 14.04.2026, alleging that despite her attempt and subsequent complaints and applications the F.I.R. was not lodged. Disposing of the petition, the Court held that an applicant aggrieved by non-lodging of an F.I.R. has an appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S., 2023) or under Section 200 Cr.P.C. (now Section 223 of the B.N.S.S., 2023). The Court referred to Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1, and followed the Division Bench ruling in Waseem Haider v. State of U.P., (2021) 2 ADJ 86 : 2020 SCC OnLine ALL 1866 (para 45 quoted), which records that a mandamus under Article 226 to compel the police to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C. may be denied for non-availing of alternative remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C. unless the four Whirlpool exceptions apply, and that Lalita Kumari does not pertain to entitlement to such a mandamus. Writ petition disposed of; no substantive relief granted.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4274 of 2026

Monika

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 9 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhoopal Singh, Surya Vijay Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 11

¶8

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶9

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

¶10

By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate decision for registering the F.I.R. on the application dated 14.04.2026, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition.

¶11

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 has also moved several complaints and applications before the competent authorities but till date F.I.R. has not been lodged.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 1866, to say

¶14

CRLP No. 4274 of 2026

¶15

¶16

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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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."

¶22

This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is aggrieved by nonlodging of the F.I.R., she has appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (now Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S., 2023) or under Section 200 Cr.P.C (now Section 223 of B.N.S.S., 2023).

¶23

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

¶24

May 11, 2026

¶25

kkv/

¶26

(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.)

¶27

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

Monika v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monika v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 9 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

Similar cases

Anchal Singh Alias Anchal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Tara Devi and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Jageshwar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Shivakant Tiwari and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Baby and another vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and 3 others

Vinod Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another