HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18121 of 2025 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh to decide the application of the petitioner dated 01.07.2025. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had made an application dated 01.07.2025 for lodging a first information report in the concerned police station but same has not been lodged. The complaint which was given by the petitioner in police station was disposed of on the basis of false compromise deed between parties. It is submitted that he never signed any compromise deed and the petitioner has not given any affidavit before the concerned police station. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application dated 01.07.2025 is still pending before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh and he has not taken any decision on the said application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh be directed to take action for lodging the first information report against the accused persons. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that no case has been made out by the petitioner for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh. He further submits that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under the B.N.S.S. to approach Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Byas Kumar Prasad, Pradeep Kumar Keshri Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Lala Ram .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the Court below by way of filing a compliant for lodging an FIR, if the Police officer fails to lodge an FIR on the application or complaint of the complainant or informant. It is also submitted by the learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions received from the authorities concerned, that the victim as well as the father of the victim has given an affidavit before the authority concerned in the Police Station to the effect that there is no demand of dowry and harassment of the victim and, therefore, the Police has not lodged the FIR. He has referred to paragraph no. 4 of the written instructions and submitted that in view of the instructions, no case for issuing a direction in the nature of mandamus to the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned for lodging a first information report, is made out. Paragraph no. 4 of the written instructions are as follows: "4-यह कहना िक याची ्षारा वतर्मान िरट यािचका िवप्षी संख्या 2 विर्ष पुिलस अधी्षक अलीगढ़ के सम्ष िदनांक 1.7.2025 को ्ऺस्तुत िकये गये ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ के सम्बन्ध में परमादेश जारी करने के बाबत ्ऺस्तुत की गयी है ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ पर आधािरत है जव िक सत्य यह है िक याची की ओर से ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ झूठे व मनगढन्त तथ्यो के आधार पर ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया है जब िक सत्य यह है िक याची की पु्ऴी ्शीमती सपना कु मारी ्षारा िदनांक 30.12.2024 को अपने पित िवप्षी संख्या 5 िशवमिसह के िवरू्ध दहेज की माँग को लेकर तंग व ्ऺतािडत िकये जाने के बाबत िदया गया था िजस पर दोनो प्षो के मध्य िविभन्न िदनांको में समझौता बातार् करायी गयी िजस पर याची की पु्ऴी ्शीमती सपना कु मारी व िशवमिसह के मध्य आपसी सहमित से समझौता हो गया तथा दोनो प्षो ने समझौता की बाबत एक नौटरी शुदा िलिखत शपथ प्ऴ िदनांक 31.01.2025 का िदया गया था तथा ्शीमती सपना कु मारी अपने ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ में कायर्वाही नहीं करना चाहती थी िजस कारण से प्ऴावली को िदनांक 31.1.2025 को बन्द कर िदया गया िजस पर याची की पु्ऴी ्शीमती सपना कु मारी के हस्ता्षर मौजूद है मिहला आयोग में िदये गये ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ जो िक जॉच हेतु ्ऺाप्त हुआ की जाँच ्शीमान ्षे्ऴािधकारी नगर ि्षतीय जनपद अलीगढ़ ्षारा की गयी जाँच के दौरान याची ्षारा वयान देकर अवगत कराया िक याधी की पु्ऴी का अपने पित से फै सला हो गया है याची की बेटी अपने पित के साथ कु शलता पूवर्क रह रही है वे इस समय ्िान देने नहीं आस सकती है इस ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ पर कोई कायर्वाही न की जाये िजसके कारण जाँच अिधकारी ्षारा याची का ्िान दजर् कराया गया तथा िदनाँक 14 फरवरी 2025 को जाँच िरपोटर् ्ऺस्तुत की गयी है याची ्षारा झूठे तथ्यो के आधार पर िदनाँक 1.7.2025 को ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया है।" 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and others, [(2014) 2 SCC 1] has held that in cases where the information discloses a cognizable offence, the police has a duty to register the FIR. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the police, the CRLP No. 18121 of 2025 2 remedy lies before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 7. After examining the material on record and the submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which allows the petitioner to approach the Magistrate for appropriate directions. 8. In the present case, this Court does not find any extraordinary circumstances warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The instant petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 7, 2025 Brijesh Maurya CRLP No. 18121 of 2025 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad