The court emphasized that FIR registration is mandatory for cognizable offences, rejecting locus standi as a barrier to filing complaints.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Injdrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Kapil Sibbal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing through Video Conferencing along with Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel as well as Mr. Deepankar Roy, the learned counsel, present in the Court Room appearing on behalf of the respondent-State as well as Mr. A.K. Das, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Saurav Kumar, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Enforcement Directorate [E.D.].

2. The prayer in the writ petition is made to show cause upon the respondents as to how and under what circumstances on-line complaint lodged by the petitioner on 11.05.2024 at 10.00 a.m. as contained in Annexure-1 has not been registered till date and the investigation has not been started and upon seeking response from the respondents to register the FIR under the relevant provisions of law and to go ahead with the prosecuting against the persons who are involved in the commission of the alleged offence as narrated in the Annexure-1 submitted by the petitioner on-line for registration of the F.I.R. on 11.05.2024 at 10.04 a.m. which has not been registered by the State police till date due to the reasons best known and in complete breach of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 and in the case of State of Telangana v. Mangipet @ Managipet Sarveshwar Reddy, (2019) 19 SCC 87 and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondent nos. 4 and 5, who are C.B.I. and Directorate of Enforcement [E.D.] respectively to institute an F.I.R. on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner submitted through e.mail on 12.05.2024 at 11.26 a.m. to the respondent nos.4 and 5 as contained at Annexure-2 considering the fact that the State police on its disbelieve by its act of not registering the F.I.R. and starting the investigation which has already shown favour being advanced towards the accused named in the written complaint who are the senior officials of the police department and there is no likelihood of impartial investigation by the State in view of involvement of such senior officials of the police department who have been in nexus with their political highers of the State.

3. Mr. Kapil Sibbal, the learned Senior counsel appearing through the Video Conferencing on behalf of the respondent State made a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and by way of pressing the I.A. No. 9800 of 2024 submitted that writ petition is not maintainable. He submitted that the petitioner is an accused in 24 cases as disclosed in paragraph no. 5 of the said I.A. and further cases are disclosed in paragraph no. 8 of the said I.A. He submitted that the petitioner is an accused himself in view of that he has got no locus-standi to file the writ petition to register the F.I.R. He submitted that if the petitioner is aggrieved, he is required to move before the learned court by way of filing the complaint. He relied in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 and he refers to paragraph nos. 11, 12, 25 and 26 of the said judgment, which are quoted herein-below:

“11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can