HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10057 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. 1. Heard the petitioner who appears in person and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the immediate registration of F.I.R. and transfer the investigation to the CBI(and not to any State agency including CBCID, suspend and transfer the SHO and IO of Bijnor Thana and direct disciplinary action against the ACP; secure all evidence and provide protection to the petitioner and witnesses; issue such directions as are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience. Direct the respondents to preserve, safeguard and hand over copies of all CCTV footage/recordings relevant to the complaint to the Registry under sealed cover, and to produce the original footage before the Court if necessary. (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case". 3. The petitioner who appears in person submits that he had made repeated representations to various authorities and complaints on IGRS for redressal of his grievance as the neighbours of the petitioner are interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner and on their behest the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : In Person Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ashish Kumar @ Dr. Ashish Kumar Dixit .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. Thru. The Chief Secy./Home Secy. Or Deputy Secy. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) police is also maligning the image of the petitioner and his family members and the enquiry reports have been submitted being influenced by them and till date no F.I.R. has been lodged. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposing the submissions of the petitioner submits that the prayer made by the petitioner is misconceived and the petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner has never approached the competent authority/court for lodging the F.I.R. whereas there is statutory provision in this regard in Cr.P.C./B.N.S.S.. He further submits that on the complaints made by the petitioner the reports have been submitted to the higher authorities. He also submits that the petitioner is changing his stand in various representations and the complaints made on the IGRS and while approaching the learned Magistrate. Though he has not prayed for lodging the F.I.R. but he has taken a different stand. He further submits that the police had approached to the father of the petitioner for inquiry in regard to an F.I.R. lodged against one Monu Dixit against whom a non-bailable warrant was issued, however he had not co- operated. 5. Learned A.G.A. further relying on a Division Bench Judgment 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 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 CRLP No. 10057 of 2025 2 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. Having heard the submissions made by the petitioner and learned A.G.A. and going through the material placed on record, it appears that the petitioner having certain grievances made a representations to various authorities including Chief Minister for impartial inquiry in the matter, on which after inquiry the report was submitted by the police. The detailed report was submitted by the police disclosing therein that there are some dispute with the family of the petitioner with neighbours and the neighbours have stated that they have no dispute and in case there is any dispute they will resolve the matter amicably. 7. The petitioner was also called for putting his case but he had denied to approach and despite the repeated calls the petitioner failed to indicate any complaint made to the concerned police for lodging of an F.I.R. against any person or to the competent court of learned Magistrate under Cr.P.C./B.N.S.S. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petition for writ of mandamus is not maintainable and no direction as prayed for can be issued merely because the petitioner is of the view that aforesaid CRLP No. 10057 of 2025 3 enquiries on representations of petitioner are influenced by some person. Even otherwise no such direction can be issued. Thus, the petition is misconceived. 8. Dismissed. November 3, 2025 kanhaiya CRLP No. 10057 of 2025 4 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench