The main legal point established in the judgment is that the writ of mandamus can be declined due to non-availing of alternative remedy under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C., unless the exceptions enumerated in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., come to rescue of the informant or victim.

1. All the aforesaid writ appeals involve common questions of law and therefore have been heard analogously and are decided by this common order.

2. 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 cognisable offence, no FIR is lodged.

2.1 In some of these 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 v. Government of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 whereas in other cases the Writ Court has declined issuance of writ of mandamus for the reason of availability of statutory remedy under Section 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C.

2.2 The core issue mentioned above in fact involves a number of principal and peripheral issues as under :-

Principal Issues :-

(i) Whether in the face of remedies u/s 154(3), 156(3), 190 & 200 Cr.P.C. writ of mandamus can be issued to police authorities to perform their statutory duty u/s 154(1) Cr.P.C. in a petition complaining non-registration of FIR despite furnishing first information of commission of cognisable offence?

(ii) Whether the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari (supra) is an answer to the above said principal issue No.1 ?

Peripheral Issues :-

(i) Can relief of writ of mandamus be denied to the informant merely on the ground that the informant is not an aggrieved person or victim and whether such person becomes functus officio after informing the police of commission of cognisable offence?

(ii) Whether the proposed accused is required to be heard before writ of mandamus can be issued in a petition complaining failure of police authorities to register offence despite being informed of commission of cognisable offence ?

2.3 Before embarking upon the process of adjudication it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions which have bearing on the issued involved herein. Section 154, Section 156, Section 190 and Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. are reproduced in seriatim for convenience and ready reference :-

"S. 154. Information in cognisable cases.

(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognisable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read Over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub- section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognisable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence.

S.156. Police officer' s power to investigate cognisable case.

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognisable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police of