Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5677-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 797 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jag Narayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Bahadur,Vikas Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A., who appears on behalf of the State-respondents No.1 to 4. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite party No.3 i.e. the Superintendent of Police, District- Amethi for registering a First Information Report at concerned Police Station- Mohanganj, District- Amethi against the opposite party No-5 to 7 (Ram Kumar Jayaswal, Ram Kewal Maurya and Harikesh) for committing murder of petitioner's son Amar Jeet Gautam and conduct further and fair investigation in his monitoring of the petitioner's matter as prayed in application dated- 26/12/2024, as contained in Annexure No-3, in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment Lalita Kumar versus State of U.P. (2013) 14 S.C.R. 713, in the interest of justice. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the opposite party no-2 i.e. the Director General of Police, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and opposite party no-3 i.e. the Superintendent of Police, District- Amethi to take legal action against the opposite party no-4 i.e. the Station Officer of Police Station- Mohanganj, District- Amethi for not registering the petitioner's First Information Report, in respect of his murdered son, in the light of Hon'ble Apex Court Judgement Lalita Kumari versus State of U.P. (2013) 14 S.C.R. 713, in the interest of justice." 3. Learned A.G.A. has produced before this Court instructions sent by In-charge Inspector, P.S. Kotwali Mohanganj, District Amethi which are kept on record. From the same, it is evident that the viscera was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow and the report was made available on 07.08.2024 and poison was not found. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he tried to lodge an F.I.R. in Police Station Mohanganj, District Amethi and also given an application to the In-charge of Police Station concerned on 05.04.2024, however, the F.I.R. was not lodged. 5. 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 taken against the erring Officer under Section 166-A of the I.P.C. (Section 199 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) or Departmental Proceedings be initiated and such proceedings can be taken against erring Officer in not registering the FIR. 6. 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. (175(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) or under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. (223 BNSS). 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". 7. This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-lodging of the F.I.R., he has appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. (175(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) or under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. (223 BNSS). 8. This writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 28.1.2025 Shubhankar Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench