Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Para 6. Therefore, the only question before this Constitution Bench relates to the interpretation of Section 154 of the Code and incidentally to consider Sections 156 and 157 also".

Shweta Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

2.8 Perusal of the judgment of Lalita Kumari and the final directions passed in paragraphs 120.1 to 120.8 clearly reveal the laying down of ratio that the police has no option but to register the offence in shape of FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. on receipt of first information regarding commission of cognizable offence without verifying the veracity of the first information. 2.9 Though the Apex Court while formulating the question in paragraph 6 (supra) made reference to Sections 156 & 157 but the entire judgment of Lalita Kumari and final directions issued therein centre around the statutory obligation of the police to register the offence under Section 154 Cr.P.C, with only passing reference of Section 156 & 157 without laying down any law as regards these provisions (Section 156 and 157 Cr.P.C.) . 2.10. Therefore it can safely be concluded that the Apex Court while interpreting the statutory provision u/s 154 Cr.P.C said nothing further as regards remedy available to the informant whose information of commission of cognizable offence does not invoke any response from the police. Thus, the judgment of Lalita Kumari does not lay down any law in respect of remedies available to the informant under Cr.P.C. to be invoked in case of failure on the part of the police to perform its statutory duty under Section 154(1) / 154(3) Cr.P.C. as a sine qua non for seeking writ of mandamus.

compel the police to perform its statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C.

4.2 Consequently even a stranger to a cognizable offence has locus standi to seek issuance of mandamus against the police to act u/s 154 Cr.P.C provided such stranger is the first informant.

5. As regards peripheral issue No.2, it is seen that the same relates to question whether proposed accused in the first information is entitled to a hearing before the writ court in a petition seeking mandamus under Article 226 directing the police to register the FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. 5.1 Reverting to the terminology of Section 154 Cr.P.C. one finds that the statute does not contemplate any prior hearing to the proposed accused before registration of cognizable offence. Thus the natural consequence that follows is that while issuing writ of mandmus directing the police to perform its statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C the accused is not required to be heard.

(1) Writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform its statutory duty u/s 154 Cr.P.C can be denied to the informant /victim for non-availing of alternative remedy u/Ss. 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C., unless the four exceptions enumerated in decision of Apex Court in the the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 SCC 1, come to rescue of the informant / victim. (2) The verdict of Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 does not pertain to issue of entitlement to writ of mandamus for compelling the police to perform statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C without availing alternative remedy under Section 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C..

(3) Subject to (1) supra the informant / victim after furnishing first information regarding cognizable offence does not become functus officio for seeking writ of mandamus for compelling the police authorities to Shweta Bhadauria Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C in case the FIR is not lodged.

(4) Subject to (1) supra the proposed accused against whom the first information of commission of cognizable offence is made, is not a necessary party to be impleaded in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to compel the police to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C.