HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10091 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. 1.Heard Sri Ramendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. 2. This petition has been filed with the following main relief:- (i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Opp. no. 2 & 3 directed to lodge a First Information Report against the Opp. no. 4 as contained in Annexure No. 1 in the interest of justice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had moved an application for lodging of the F.I.R through registered post, however, till date the same has not been registered, therefore, the petitioner is constraint to approach this Court. 4. Learned A.G.A has raised preliminary objection on the ground of alternative and statutory remedy under the B.N.S.S, 2023 which can be availed of in terms of the Division Bench judgement 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 versus Government of U.P. and others; (2014) 2 SCC 1, 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramendra Kumar Misra, Ram Karan Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sunil Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 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." 5. In view of above and availability of the alternative and statutory remedy, the petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. November 6, 2025 Shahnaz CRLP No. 10091 of 2025 2 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench