Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39241-DB Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6068 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sangeeta Verma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramendra Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State/opposite parties and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to direct the opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 to lodge FIR against opposite party nos.4 and 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have given written application dated 23.05.2025 before Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Lucknow but nothing has been done by the authorities, hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners. 5. 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 in Misc. Bench No.24492 of 2020 reported in 2021 ADJ 86, wherein the Division Bench after considering the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (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. Paragraph 45 of the judgment in Waseem Haider (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." 6. This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the competent court by filing an application under Sections 156 (3) Cr.P.C., if he is aggrieved by any inaction on the part of opposite parties. . (Manish Kumar, J.)(Vivek Chaudhary, J.) Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Arnima Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench