Compliance with statutory mechanisms for FIR registration is essential before seeking a writ of mandamus against police authorities.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, Shri Sajjad Husain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:-

"I. Issue any appropriate writ or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the opposite party No. 1 & 2, to take lawful action against opposite party Nos. 3 & 4 for not communicating any action/refusal taken on the petitioner's statutory application dt. 18.10.2025 moved under Section 154 Cr.P.C. as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , in the interest of Justice.

II. Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the opposite party no. 1 & 2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dt. 27.11.2025 within stipulated time and period as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Copy of the application dated 27.11.2025 moved under section 36 CRPC (Section 30 BNSS) before the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2, is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding and directing to the opposite party No. 2 to take appropriate steps as to initiate departmental proceedings for non-compliance of judgment and order as law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others , 2014 (2) SCC 1, against the opposite party No. 3 for securing the ends of justice."

3. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others , (2014) 2 SCC 1 , referring paragraphs 120.1 to 120.8. Further reliance is placed on the order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court disposing of a petition in light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Lalita Kumari (Supra). Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that this writ petition may be disposed of in light of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra), in the same manner as the petition decided by the coordinate bench vide order dated 17.11.2025 (Annexure No. 10).

4. Per contra, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned AGA, has placed reliance on the dictum of the judgment of this Court in Waseem Haider vs. State of U.P. and others , (2021) 2 ADJ 86 : 2020 SCC OnLine All 1866. She stated that the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Waseem Haider, after considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari (Supra), expressed the opinion that the informant has a statutory remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Paragraph 45 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

"45. Before parting, the conclusion arrived at based on the above discussion and analysis is delineated below for ready reference and convenience:—

(1) A writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform its statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C. can be denied to the informant/victim for non-availing of alternative remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190, and 200 Cr.P.C., unless the four exceptions enumerated in the decision of the Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 1, come to the rescue of the informant/victim.

(2) The verdict of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1 , does not pertain to the issue of entitlement to a writ of mandamus for compelling the police to perform statutory duties under Section 154 Cr.P.C. without availing alternative remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190, and 20