Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35009-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4829 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bitti Rayni Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra Pathak,Km. Anjali Gautam,Sheo Mani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State/opposite parties and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers : "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties particularly opposite party no.3 not to disturb and interfere in the independent life of the petitioner and further not to force the petitioner to live with the opposite party no.4. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Party No.2 to take appropriate action into the matter against the opposite party No.3 and 4 in accordance with law upon the representation of the petitioner and protect the life and liberty of the petitioner." It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner belongs to Muslim community. She has solemnized marriage on her own will with the opposite party No.4 at Arya Samaj Temple, Safedabad, Barabanki on 22.11.2020 and she also adopted Hindu religion. However, after marriage the opposite party No.4 and his family members started harassing the petitioner therefore, the petitioner left the house of the opposite party No.4 and is living on rented accommodation but the opposite party No.4 with the connivance of the police harassed the petitioner. Petitioner being aggrieved with the said action made a detailed representation dated 22.05.2025 to the Superintendent of Police, Bahraich for her safety and security but no action has been taken. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court by means of present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others; (2014) 2 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where a cognizable offence is made out in an application/representation by any person, then the respondents/police authorities are duty bound to register the F.I.R. However, no F.I.R. has been registered till date in the case of the petitioner. Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. and others, Misc. Bench No.24492 of 2020: 2021 ADJ 86, wherein the Division Bench after considering the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others (supra) has observed in paragraph 45 that the informant/victim has remedy under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and writ petitions 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. This court has perused the paragraph 45 of the judgment as cited by the learned A.G.A.-II Shri S.P. Singh. Paragraph 45 of the judgment in Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) is quoted herein below:- "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." Considering the aforesaid as also Section 175 of BNSS, 2023 akin to Section 156 Cr.P.C. and Section 223 BNSS, 2023 akin to Section 200 Cr.P.C., this court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition for the relief sought, quoted above, and accordingly it is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that if the petitioner is aggrieved by non-lodging of the FIR, to avail the appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 175 BNSS or under Section 223 of BNSS. This writ petition stands disposed of. (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Order Date :- 9.6.2025 ML/- Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench