Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19064-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2626 of 2025 Petitioner :- Krishna Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anoop Kumar,Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents, Sri Anoop Kumar and Sri Sandeep Srivastava, Advocates, who have filed their Power today on behalf of opposite party no.7, which is taken on record and perused the material placed on record. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer :- "(i) To issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No.2 to pass the appropriate order while directing the opposite party No.3 for lodging the F.I.R. against the persons name mention in the application dated 20.03.2025 as per mandate issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Versus state of U.P. and other as the Learned Civil Judge Gonda granted the injunction in favour of the petitioners on 05.08.2024 and the Learned Civil Judge Gonda on 30.10.2024 also directed for compliance/insuring the injunction order to S.H.O. Khodare District Gonda but the sugar cane crop has been cut by the private respondents the application dated 20.03.2025 has been moved for lodging the F.I.R. contain as Annexure No.9 to this writ petition in the interest of justice." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had attempted to lodge the first information report against the respondent nos.4 to 7, but no heed was paid and the F.I.R. was not lodged. The petitioners also moved an application to the Superintendent of Police, Gonda on 25.3.2025, but till date FIR has not been lodged. 4. The 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 161- A of Cr.P.C. or Departmental Proceedings be initiated and such proceedings can be taken against erring Officer in not registering the FIR. 5. 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 reported in (2021) 2 ADJ 86, to say 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:- "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." 6. This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioners are aggrieved by non-lodging of the FIR, they have appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. 7. This writ petition stands disposed of. . [Brij Raj Singh,J.] [Vivek Chaudhary,J.] Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MEHROTRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench