Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ.
Neelam Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3195 of 2024
Decided On : 13-05-2024
Writ Petition - Police Misconduct and Registration of FIR - Sections 154, 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1; Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287 - The court discussed the mandatory duty of police to register FIRs under Section 154 of the CrPC when a cognizable offence is disclosed. It emphasized that a preliminary inquiry is not permissible in such cases and that failure to register an FIR can lead to action against erring officers. The court also highlighted the importance of alternative remedies available under Section 156(3) CrPC for aggrieved parties, reinforcing the principle that the High Court should not intervene when an effective remedy exists.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, the wife of a practicing advocate, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct police officials to register an FIR against them for alleged police misconduct during an incident involving her husband, who was accused of attempting to encroach on public land and subsequently assaulted by police officers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations made by the petitioner were not credible and that the police acted within their duty to maintain law and order. The court noted the existence of counter-complaints from neighbors, including other advocates, against the petitioner's husband, which undermined the petitioner's claims.
Issues: Whether the police were obligated to register an FIR based on the petitioner's complaint, and whether the writ petition was maintainable given the existence of alternative remedies under the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the police are mandated to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed, as per Section 154 of the CrPC. However, the court emphasized that the petitioner had alternative remedies available under Section 156(3) CrPC and that the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when such remedies exist. The court also noted that the petitioner's claims appeared to be motivated by malice and personal vendetta against the police.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the court finding no merit in the petitioner's claims and highlighting the need for ethical conduct among advocates.
JUDGMENT :
VINOD DIWAKAR, JJ.
1. The petitioner [A lawyer’s wife, her husband is a practising Advocate of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad] has approached this Court through the instant writ petition to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Lucknow, U.P. to take stringent action against (i) the Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj; (ii) Deputy Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj; (iii) Assistant Commissioner of Police, Colonelganj, Prayagraj; (iv) Station House Officer, P.S. Colonelganj, Prayagraj; (v) S.I. Sandeep Yadav posted at P.S. Colonelganj, Prayagraj; (vi) PRO Deputy Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj; and further sought mandamus to take action on the complaint dated 26.2.2024.
2. On examination of the complaint, it reveals that the petitioner has made a complaint on 26.2.2024 at 04:00 p.m. at P.S. Colonelganj, Prayagraj with respect to the allegations inter-alia stating that the petitioner’s husband was at his residence when a dispute arose between petitioner’s husband and his neighbours, someone dialled 112, the police reached at the place of incident, slapped and abused the petitioner’s husband and forcibly took him to the police station at Colonelganj. The petitioner informed her husband’s friends to reach the police station at the earliest, who all are practising Advocate of this High Court. The petitioner’s husband was brutally assaulted and kept in the police lock-up, where paper weight and locks were thrown at him with intention to kill, but somehow he managed to save his life. The incident was witnessed by petitioner’s husband’s friends, namely, Shri Tejbhan Singh, Shri Acharya Tripathi and Shri Harish Srivastava. The petitioner reported the incident by way of a written complaint to police to register an F.I.R. against the police officers, and the PRO of Commissioner of Police was also informed about the matter and the issue was also brought into the knowledge of the higher officers, but despite that no heed was paid to her grievances.
3. Shri Ashish Kumar Mishra, Treasurer of the High Court Bar Association, also met with the PRO of Commissioner of Police Prayagraj and apprised him about the incident and requested action against the errant police officers. A communication dated 26.2.2024 in respect of the Advocates’ grievances at 09:00 p.m. was also allegedly communicated to the office of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court to save the Advocate's life.
4. Aggrieved by the non-registration of F.I.R. against the police officers, the petitioner approached this Court under writ jurisdiction and thus, Shri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that (i) the contents of the complaint dated 26.2.2024 is forming part of the cognizable offence, therefore the police are duty bound to register an F.I.R., (ii) there are serious allegations of forceful abduction in a police van, (iii) the petitioner's husband was brutally beaten up in the police lock-up and ill-behaved by the police officers at the police station, and, therefore, police is duty bound to register the first information report and in support of arguments he has relied upon Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v. State of Maharashtra and others, Passed in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5883 of 2020 and celebrated judgment of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1.
5. On the other hand, Shri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri G.P. Singh learned A.G.A. submits that there is no iota of truth in the contents of the complaint dated 26.2.2024. The complaint is deceptive, artificial, motivated and contrived for the purpose and object to prima-facie ensure that the ingredients of any cognizable offence are satisfied on plane reading of the contents of complaint. The writ petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner had an equally efficacious remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Chapt
The police are required to register an FIR when a cognizable offence is disclosed, but aggrieved parties must first exhaust alternative remedies under the CrPC before seeking relief through writ juri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the writ of mandamus can be declined when seeking to direct registration of FIR before exhausting the available statutory remedies under Cr.P.....
The appropriate remedy for non-registration of FIR is to take recourse under other provisions of the CrPC, not seeking relief under Article 226.
Writ jurisdiction should only be exercised when no alternative remedies exist; parties must seek resolution through appropriate legal channels before court intervention.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
