Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38892-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5943 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raja Ram And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. who appears for the State- respondents and Sri Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate, along with Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Advocate, who has filed power on behalf of respondent no.4. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to lodge the F.I.R. against the respondent no.4 inn the light of Apex Court's judgement rendered in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Others. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct fair investigation after lodging the F.I.R. against the respondent no.4." 3. Learned A.G.A. has pointed out 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". 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent has placed before this Court a copy of the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 24.06.2025 in Case No.1746 of 2025: Sandeep Godiya Vs. Ashish and others, wherein the application made by the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected for want of prosecution. 5. The order dated 24.06.2025 is kept on record. 6. This Court is of the opinion that if the petitioners are aggrieved by non-lodging of the F.I.R., they have appropriate remedy of filing a complaint under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S., corresponding Section156(3) Cr.P.C. or under Section 223 of B.N.S.S., corresponding Section 200 Cr.P.C. 7. This writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Rahul Digitally signed by :- RAHUL TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench