JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to register the crime/FIR against the respondents No.05 to 011 herein and provide instant protection to the petitioner and his family.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents No.05 & 06-authorities in connivance with the private respondents No.07 to 11 on 25.06.2020 has kept the petitioner under wrongful confinement for 05-06 hours and the hotel/restaurant of the petitioner has been demolished by the police officials and further the entire belongings of the petitioner’s hotel alongwith cash to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs has been looted by them. It is further submitted that there was no order/sanction of any competent authority to demolition the hotel/restaurant of the petitioner neither any notice of eviction or opportunity of hearing has been afford to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned action on the part of the respondents-authorities is arbitrary, erroneous and illegal and, therefore, the petitioner has preferred various complaints/representation to that effect before the respondent-authorities vide Annexure-P/11, but no action has been taken till date. Hence, present petition be allowed and appropriate direction/order be passed in this regard.

4. Per-contra, learned State counsel would submit that if petitioner is aggrieved by non-registration of FIR on the complaints made by him, he has alternative remedy to approach jurisdictional criminal court under Sections 156(3) of CrPC or to file complaint under Section 200 of CrPC, but in the instant writ petition, petitioner is seeking mandamus directing the police to register FIR under Section 154 of CrPC, which is not maintainable and petitioner be relegated to avail remedy of approaching jurisdictional criminal court under Section 156(3) of CrPC or to prefer complaint under Section 200 CrPC.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.

6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 while dealing with a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of Indian seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus or directions of like nature against the respondents therein for the protection of minor daughter who was kidnapped, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court formulated following questions in Para-01 & 06 as under:

“1. The important issue which arises for consideration in the referred matter is whether “a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) or the police officer has the power to conduct a “preliminary inquiry” in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same?

6. Therefore, the only question before this Constitution Bench relates to the interpretation of Section 154 of the Code and incidentally to consider Sections 156 and 157 also.”

Thereafter, their Lordships while answering the above-stated questions laid down the principle of law that police has no option but to register the offence in shape of FIR under Section 154 CrPC on receipt of first information regarding commission of cognizable offence without verifying the veracity of the first information and held in Para 120 to 120.6 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 of