ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Waseem Haider seeking mandamus commanding the respondents no. 2 & 3 to make direction to respondent no. 4 for registration of the First Information Report on the application of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that original owner of land Khasra Nos. 1120Ka, 1097, 2067, 1120Ka, 1121, 1122Ka, 1138, 2151Gha, 2245Ga and 1120 situated at Village Katui Paragana and Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, Old District Faizabad was Shri Ambad Mehndi, who executed Theekanama in favour of his chief executive Quari Sayed Akhtar Husain alongwith some conditions. It is submitted that he did not transfer his title, and only the right to use the aforesaid land was given. It is also submitted that the aforesaid gata numbers are new gata numbers and in the deed of Theekanama, old numbers have been mentioned.

3. Learned counsel has submitted that Late Syed Ahmad Mehdi was Talukdar of Peerpur Estate and after his death his only daughter Smt. Huma Husain inherited the said property by way of succession. The petitioner is attorney holder of Smt. Huma Husain and managing the affairs of Smt. Huma Husain.

4. It is submitted that when the petitioner came to know about the forged and fraudulent sale deed which was executed by Shri Jagdish Mishra in favour of several persons through six sale deeds on 29.01.2020, the petitioner moved application for registration of First Information Report to opposite party no. 4 on 27.06.2020, but opposite party no. 4 did not register the said F.I.R.

5. He has submitted that the petitioner approached opposite party no. 3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar and submitted application through registered post dated 10.07.2020 for registration of F.I.R., but nothing has been done by the said authority.

6. Learned counsel has further submitted that when the report of the petitioner was not lodged by opposite party no. 4 and no direction was given by opposite party no. 3 to opposite party no. 4 then the petitioner approached opposite party no. 2 i.e. Director General of Police, U.P., Lucknow and moved an application through E-mail on 04.12.2020, but again nothing was done by the police authorities.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others; (2014) 2 SCC 1 and submitted that upon receipt of information by a police officer in-charge of a police station disclosing a cognizable offence, it is imperative for him to register a case under Section 154 of the Code.

8. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer as made in the present writ petition and raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and states that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that his first information report is not being registered, he has an alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Learned AGA has also vehemently submitted that proposed accused has not been made a party, which is necessary for proper adjudication of this case. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed merely on this ground itself.

9. Heard Mohd. Muballi Gussalam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.S. Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

10. The core issue raised herein is whether a writ of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the police to register an offence under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. in a petition raising grievance that despite informing the police about the commission of cognizable offence, no FIR is lodged.

11. In some cases the writ Court has directed the police authorities to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C. by following the law laid down by the Apex Court in the Constitution Bench decision of Lalita Kumari (supra). The State has taken serious objection and submitted that the Writ Court s