Hafizullah v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue and Others

Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8433 of 2023 Petitioner :- Hafizullah Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Somesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

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

¶2This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- " To issue a writ, order or direction for constituting a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising of the police personnels from outside the District Sultanpur thereby investigating the complaint made by the petitioner against the opposite party no.5 against the illegal trespass on the ancestral property of the petitioner.

¶3It is the case of the petitioner that he tried to lodge an F.I.R. by making a complaint through I.G.R.S. and he also written a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur on 30.06.2023, however, the F.I.R. was not lodged.

¶4The 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 taken against the erring Officer under Section 166-A of the I.P.C. or Departmental Proceedings be initiated and such proceedings can be taken against erring Officer in not registering the FIR.

¶5Learned 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 hereinbelow:-"45. Before parting, the conclusion arrived at based on the above discussion and analysis is delineated below for ready reference and convenience :-

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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".

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

¶7This writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Renu/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench