Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 154 crpc in Waseem Haider vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 14 December, 2020Matching Fragments
21. 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.).
22. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the Apex Court while interpreting the statutory provision under Section 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.
41. Consequently even a stranger to a cognizable offence has locus standi to seek issuance of mandamus against the police to act under Section 154 Cr.P.C. provided such stranger is the first informant.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. Accordingly, peripheral issue No.2 is decided by holding that proposed accused whose name is mentioned in the FIR is not a necessary party, in a writ seeking issuance of mandamus against police authorities compelling them to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
(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) 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 perform their statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C in case the FIR is not lodged.