The availability of alternative remedies under the CrPC for the aggrieved person and the discretionary jurisdiction of the court in issuing a writ of mandamus for compelling the police to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 CrPC.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner seeks a direction that despite his report for registration of offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC against respondents No.6 to 8, respondents No.1 to 3 have not registered any offence against the said persons, whereas they ought to have registered offence against the said private respondents, as the complaint filed by him discloses the commission of aforesaid offences.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Mohaliya, has lodged a report against respondents No.6 to 8 as they have obtained employment by forged certificates and thus, have committed the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC, but no action has been taken and the complaint filed by him clearly and prima facie discloses the commission of cognizable offence, therefore, as per the decision laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 it was imperative for respondents No.1 to 3 to register FIR, but, as they have declined, appropriate writ or direction be issued for registration of FIR.

3. The State counsel would submit that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the action of the police authorities in not taking cognizance of the alleged offence, he has remedy to submit application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate or to file complaint before the jurisdictional criminal Court under Section 200 of the CrPC , as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. She would further submit that the dispute raised by the petitioner is not maintainable, as the petitioner has no locus to file the instant petition and on the basis of that, no direction can be given for registration of FIR against the private respondents.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

5. The question for consideration would be, whether a writ of mandamus should be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the jurisdictional police to register an offence under Section 154(1) of the CrPC in a petition filed stating that despite informing the police about the commission of offence, FIR is not being registered against the concerned persons?

6. At this stage, it is appropriate to notice the judgment forcefully relied upon by the petitioner i.e. Lalita Kumari (supra) in which the Supreme Court has held that registration of FIR is the mandatory duty of the police and held as under: -

''120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 120.1 Registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

120.2 If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

120.6 As