# Neelam Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1403
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3195 of 2024
- **Bench:** Siddharth, Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neelam-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52039
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154(3),
156(3), 190 & 200 - Information to the
Police and their powers to Investigate -
Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Registration of FIR - Police
are obligated to lodge an F.I.R. if the
complaint
meets
the
requirments
of
cognizable offence, and if the police fail in
their duty, the aggrieved person can
approach the Court of Magistrate for
redressal of their grievances - Aggrieved
citizen with clean hands must have free
access to invoke the power under Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C.
which
warrants
the
application of judicial mind - Lodging a
complaint with the police regarding the
commission of a cognizable offence does
not entitle the complainant to invoke writ
jurisdiction to seek a writ of mandamus
directing the police to register an FIR -
Especially true in cases where there are
allegations
and
counter-allegations
between two parties involved in the
dispute. (Para- 11, 14, 22,)

Writ Petition is dismissed. (E-13)
1404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: Advocates are resorting to unethical
practices by invoking the writ jurisdiction under
the pretext of fundamental rights infringement,
while it appears to be an attempt to settle a
personal vendetta with the police. Petitioner is
currently facing four serious criminal cases in the
same police station. The proceedings initiated by
the petitioner are an abuse of the process of law,
and any indulgence by this Court would have an
adverse effect on the administration of justice
and detrimentally impact the morale of the police,
an institution tasked with upholding law and
order in civil society. Anyone who has been
graced with the owner of wearing of robes is the
officer of the Court, and his prime duty is to assist
the Court in the administration of justice. This is
a novel profession not only because he enjoys an
aristocratic position in society but also obligates
him to be worthy of the community's confidence
in him as a vehicle of achieving justice. (Para -
27, 28, 31,)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,957 of 45,148. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39957 for what follows._

5 All. Neelam Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1403
light of the above principle of law in the
instant case, we find that the evidence of
discovery may be admissible as conduct
under section 8 of the Act as held by the trial
court but at the same time it has been held
by Hon'ble Apex Court, sounding a note of
caution, wherein it has been held that the
conduct of an accused may be relevant fact
under section 8 of the Act, yet the same, by
itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or
hold guilty and that too, for a serious offence
like murder. Thus, in the backdrop of the
circumstances even considering section 8 of
the Evidence Act. Conviction of the
appellant under section 302 I.P.C., can not
be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to
be set-aside.

47. Thus, from the entire discussions,
we find that prosecution has miserably
failed to prove its case against the appellant
and the evidence adduced is in fact in
admissible as discussed above. Even from
the entire evidence it can not be said that in
all human probability act must have been
done by the accused particularly when there
were two other male members in the family
present in the house at the time of incident
and the instant case, being the case of a blind
murder.

48. Thus, in view of the foregoing
discussions, we are of the opinion that the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its
case against the appellant and he is entitled
for benefit of doubt. The finding of
conviction recorded by trial court is not just,
proper and legal and is liable to be set-aside
and the appellant is acquitted of the charges
framed against him by allowing the present
appeal. He is on bail. His bail bonds are
cancelled and sureties are discharged,
subject compliance of provision u/s 437 A
Cr.P.C, within 15 days from the date of the
Judgment.

49. This criminal appeal is accordingly
allowed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1403
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3195 of 2024

Neelam Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ritesh Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law- The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 154(3),
156(3), 190 & 200 - Information to the
Police and their powers to Investigate -
Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Registration of FIR - Police
are obligated to lodge an F.I.R. if the
complaint
meets
the
requirments
of
cognizable offence, and if the police fail in
their duty, the aggrieved person can
approach the Court of Magistrate for
redressal of their grievances - Aggrieved
citizen with clean hands must have free
access to invoke the power under Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C.
which
warrants
the
application of judicial mind - Lodging a
complaint with the police regarding the
commission of a cognizable offence does
not entitle the complainant to invoke writ
jurisdiction to seek a writ of mandamus
directing the police to register an FIR -
Especially true in cases where there are
allegations
and
counter-allegations
between two parties involved in the
dispute. (Para- 11, 14, 22,)

Writ Petition is dismissed. (E-13)
1404 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held: Advocates are resorting to unethical
practices by invoking the writ jurisdiction under
the pretext of fundamental rights infringement,
while it appears to be an attempt to settle a
personal vendetta with the police. Petitioner is
currently facing four serious criminal cases in the
same police station. The proceedings initiated by
the petitioner are an abuse of the process of law,
and any indulgence by this Court would have an
adverse effect on the administration of justice
and detrimentally impact the morale of the police,
an institution tasked with upholding law and
order in civil society. Anyone who has been
graced with the owner of wearing of robes is the
officer of the Court, and his prime duty is to assist
the Court in the administration of justice. This is
a novel profession not only because he enjoys an
aristocratic position in society but also obligates
him to be worthy of the community's confidence
in him as a vehicle of achieving justice. (Para -
27, 28, 31,)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs The St. of Mah. &
ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5883
of 2020)

2. Lalita Kumari Vs St. of U. P. & ors., (2014) 2
SCC 1

3. Maksud Saiyed Vs St. of Guj. & ors. , (2008) 5
SCC 668

4. Sakiri Vasu Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , (2008) 2 SCC
409

5. Anil Kumar & ors. Vs M.K. Aiyappa & anr.,
(2013) 10 SCC 705

6. Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of
Gujarat , (2015) 6 SCC 439

7. Suresh Kankra Vs St. of U.P. , (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 1947

8. Waseem Haider Vs St. of U.P. through Principal
Secretary Home Lko & Ors. , (2020) SCC OnLine
All 1866

9. M. Subramaniam & anr. Vs S. Janaki & Anr. ,
(2020) 16 SCC 728

10. Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs Hemant
Yashwant Dhage & Ors, (2016) 6 SCC 277

11. Sweta Bhadoria Vs St. of M.P, (2017) (I) MPJR
247

12. Priyanka Srivastava & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & Ors,
(2015) 6 SCC 287

13. Bar Council of Mah. Vs M.V. Dabolkar, AIR
1976 SC 242

14. Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade
Marks, (1998) 8 S.C.C. 1

15. Baker Oils Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Baker
Hughes Ltd. & ors. (R.F.A. No.583/2004)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. The petitioner1 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
5 All. Neelam Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1405
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. The State
of Maharashtra and others2, and celebrated
judgment of Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others3.

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 Chapter XII and
XV of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. The writ petition is also liable to be
dismissed at this stage because of the nonjoinder of the necessary parties. Initially the
petitioner's husband tried to encroach upon
the public land for their private use in the
vicinity of which there exists an ancient Kali
Mata Temple, in which all the neighbours
gather for the religious congregations. This
led to have an altercation between the
petitioner's husband on one side and a group
of neighbours comprising advocates and
public spirited persons on the other side. As
there is one advocate on one side and several
advocates on other side, the issue got boiled
and the matter was taken to the police
station. The petitioner's husband was
heavily drunk and was abusing in filthy
language and ill-behaving with everyone
present over there on the spot. The police
1406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was called by one of the aggrieved lawyer's
family and the petitioner's husband was
taken to the police station respectfully and
dignity of an individual was very well taken
care by the local police. As the campaigning
for the High Court Bar Association was on
high spirit, therefore, a group of advocates
reached at the spot and thereafter gathered at
the police station, from both the sides.
Sensing that there could be a law and order
problem, the additional police force was
called from the nearby police station/district
over through ROIP (Radio Over Internet
Protocol System). He prays for dismissal of
the petition with costs being frivolous and
devoid of merits.

6. In support of his submission, learned
A.A.G. contends that there is no mechanism
before this Court under writ jurisdiction to
verify the truth and veracity of the
allegations made in the complaint. This is
particularly significant when both parties'
claims and counter-claims are supported by
respective affidavits and CCTV footage. It is
emphasized that within the scope of criminal
writ
jurisdiction,
the
Court
is
not
empowered to assess the veracity of
allegations or determine the credibility of
evidence.

7. Shri P.C. Srivastava has relied
upon Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat
and others4, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.
and others5, Anil Kumar and others v.
M.K. Aiyappa and another6, Ramdev
Food Products Private Limited v. State
of Gujarat7, Suresh Kankra v. State of
U.P.8, Waseem Haider v. State of U.P.
through Principal Secretary Home Lko
& Ors.9, M. Subramaniam & Anr. v. S.
Janaki & Anr.10, Sudhir Bhaskarrao
Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage &
Ors11, Sweta Bhadoria v. State of
M.P.12.
8. On perusal of the record, it's transpired
that the police were called upon to file
counter affidavit twice; the first counter
affidavit dated 4.3.2024 was filed by Deputy
Commissioner
of
Police,
Prayagraj
Commissionerate and the second affidavit of
compliance dated 4.4.2024 was filed by
S.H.O. P.S. Colonelganj, District Prayagraj.
On perusal of the both the affidavits it's
revealed that; (i) on the complaint of
Advocate Alok Srivastava, the next door
neighbour of the petitioner's husband, SHO
Colonelganj
informed
the
Chowki-incharge, Mumfordganj at 13:42 to reach at
the spot, and maintained peace at the place
of incident, (ii) the SHO and the Chowki-incharge immediately reached at the spot and
found that Advocate Alok Srivastava,
Advocated Arun Sharma, Pradeep Kumar
Srivastava, Anoop
Srivastava,
Pranav
Tripathi, Advocate Dilip Srivastava, Vimal
Gupta, Vineet Srivastava, Prabal Pratap
Srivastava, Atul Singh, and Aniruddh
Maurya
have
complained
that
the
petitioner's husband, Shri Amarjeet Singh,
is forcibly occupying the land of the ancient
Kali Mata Temple and when he was objected
to stop encroachment on the public land, he
under the influence of liquor hurled filthy
language to the men, women and all
neighbours gathered there at the time of
incident and terrorized the neighbours by
waving long stick in his hand, (iii) after
assessing the overall situation, the local
SHO informed the PRV and sought the
additional force to control the situation, and
law and order, (iv) despite repeated
persuasion by the chowki incharge and the
neighbours, the petitioner's husband was not
ready to listen to anyone and was bent upon
to assault the neighbours and police
personnels, (v) to control the situation of
unrest/law and order, ROIP (Radio Over
Internet Protocol System) was activated by
the
police
force
around
14:10,
the
5 All. Neelam Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1407
petitioner's husband was brought in a
respectful manner at the police station in
PRV Vehicle 0084 and requested all the
victims to reach at the police station, (vi) the
Advocates from both the sides were also
reached at the police station along with
dozen of complaints against petitioner's
husband, who were asked to sit properly and
asked to explain their grievances so that
everything could be settled amicably in a
dignified manner, (vii) after a herculean task
by the police officers with the aim to
maintain harmony and brotherhood between
the neighbours-particularly between two
group of advocates- the petitioner's husband
was cooled down and his custody was
handed over to his friend Dinesh Pratap
Singh by executing a Supurdaginama, which
is annexed as Annexure-CA-2 along with
the counter affidavit, (viii) again after few
hours a group of advocates associated with
the petitioner's husband reached at the
police station and started ill-behaving with
the police force, the SHO and ACP
Colonelganj was abused by threatening
them to dis-robe their uniform, (ix) the
CCTV footage of police station is also
attached with the counter affidavit filed by
the police, (x) the incident was recorded in
the GD, which is forming part of the counter
affidavit as Annexure-CA-3, (xi) again on
28.3.2024 at around 11:30 a.m. the
neighbours, who were aggrieved by the
illegal encroachment of the public land and
criminal act of the petitioner's husband,
filed a written complaint to the ACP and
apprised that the petitioner's husband is a
man of suspicious character and is found
involved in four criminal cases enumerated
herein: (a) Case Crime No.1090 of 2004,
under Sections 307, 286, 332, 353 I.P.C. and
Section 7 of C.L.A. Act, registered at P.S.
Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, (b) Case
Crime No.1092 of 2004, under Sections 336,
332, 147, 148, 427 I.P.C. and Public
Property Damages Act, registered at P.S.
Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, (c) Case
Crime No.1094 of 2004, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 442, 286, 332
I.P.C., registered at P.S. Colonelganj,
District Prayagraj, (d) Case Crime No.2118
of 1998, under Sections 307, 504, 427 I.P.C.,
registered at P.S. Colonelganj, District
Prayagraj, (xii) a copy of the District Crime
Report Bureau (DCRB) report is also
annexed along with the counter affidavit
reflecting with above-stated cases.

9. Upon scrutiny of the counter
affidavit
submitted
by
the
Deputy
Commissioner of Police, it came to light that
there were two complaints dated 26.2.2024
and
28.2.2024,
signed
by
multiple
individuals
including
Ms.
Sandhya
Srivastava, Ms. Stuti Srivastava, Ms. Reeta
Srivastava, Mr. Manu Srivastava, Advocate
Alok Srivastava, Advocate Arun Sharma,
Pradeep
Kumar
Srivastava,
Anoop
Srivastava, Pranav Tripathi, Advocate Dilip
Srivastava, Vimal Gupta, Vineet Srivastava,
Prabal Pratap Srivastava, Atul Singh, and
Aniruddh Maurya. Further examination
revealed that on 26.2.2024, around 12:30
p.m., the petitioner's husband attempted to
encroach upon the land belonging to the
temple. Upon objection from neighbours,
Shri Amarjit Singh, the petitioner's husband,
in a heavily intoxicated state, verbally
abused and behaved inappropriately with the
women and neighbours. The neighbours
promptly informed the police, leading to the
petitioner's husband being taken to the
police station. Subsequently, his friends, all
of whom were advocates, further engaged in
abusive, disrespectful, and threatening
behaviour towards the police officers
present at the station.

10. Advocate Arun Sharma, Advocate
Alok Srivastava, Advocate Dilip Srivastava,
1408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Prabal Pratap Srivastava, Aniruddh Maurya,
Pradeep Srivastava, Pranav Tripathi, Anoop
Srivastava, Atul Singh, Vineet Srivastava,
and Vimal Gupta have filed respective
affidavits duly notarized by notary public
inter-alia stating in the line of contents of the
above-stated complaint. The same are not
repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

11. As the complaints from both
groups of advocates, prima-facie, satisfy the
basic requirements to attract the ingredients
of cognizable offence, it would be judicious
to have a bird's eye view of the judgments
passed by the Supreme Court in this regard.
Undoubtedly, the police are obligated to
lodge an F.I.R. if the complaint meets the
requirments of cognizable offence, and if the
police fail in their duty to register an F.I.R.,
the aggrieved person reserves its right to
approach the Court of Magistrate for
redressal of their grievances.

12. The Constitution Bench in Lalita
Kumari v. State of U.P. and others (supra)
has outlined the law with regard to the
registration of F.I.R. The relevant portion of
the judgment is reiterated herein under:

"120. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we hold:

120.1. The registration of FIR is
mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if
the information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no preliminary
inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

120.2. If the information received
does not disclose a cognizable offence but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a
preliminary inquiry may be conducted only
to ascertain whether cognizable offence is
disclosed or not.

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR
must be registered. In cases where
preliminary inquiry ends in closing the
complaint, a copy of the entry of such
closure must be supplied to the first
informant forthwith and not later than one
week. It must disclose reasons in brief for
closing the complaint and not proceeding
further.

120.4. The police officer cannot
avoid his duty of registering offence if
cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must
be taken against erring officers who do not
register the FIR if information received by
him discloses a cognizable offence.

120.5. The scope of preliminary
inquiry is not to verify the veracity or
otherwise of the information received but
only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.

120.6. As to what type and in
which cases preliminary inquiry is to be
conducted will depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. The category of
cases in which preliminary inquiry may be
made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family
disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal
delay/laches
in
initiating
criminal
prosecution, for example, over 3 months'
delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for
delay.

The
aforesaid
are
only
illustrations and not exhaustive of all
conditions which may warrant preliminary
inquiry.

120.7
While
ensuring
and
protecting the rights of the accused and the
complainant, a preliminary inquiry should
be made time-bound and in any case it
should not exceed fifteen days generally and
in exceptional cases, by giving adequate
5 All. Neelam Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1409
reasons, six weeks' time is provided. The fact
of such delay and the causes of it must be
reflected in the General Diary entry.13

120.8.
Since
the
General
Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the
record of all information received in a police
station, we direct that all information
relating to cognizable offences, whether
resulting in registration of FIR or leading to
an inquiry, must be mandatorily and
meticulously reflected in the said diary and
the decision to conduct a preliminary
inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned
above."

13. The Supreme Court in Priyanka
Srivastava & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.14,
further clarified certain aspects in relation to
the registration of F.I.R. where, primarily,
dispute is of a commercial nature or as if
somebody is determined to settle the
personal score by taking undue advantage of
criminal courts and thus, observed:

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri
Vasu v. State of U.P. [Sakiri Vasu v. State of
U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
440, that if a person has a grievance that his
FIR has not been registered by the police, or
having been registered, proper investigation
is not being done, then the remedy of the
aggrieved person is not to go to the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, but to approach the Magistrate
concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If
such an application under Section 156(3)
CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima
facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be
registered, or if it has already been
registered,
he
can
direct
proper
investigation to be done which includes in
his discretion, if he deems it necessary,
recommending change of the investigating
officer, so that a proper investigation is done
in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri
Vasu case [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.,
(2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 :
AIR 2008 SC 907] because what we have
found in this country is that the High Courts
have been flooded with writ petitions
praying for registration of the first
information report or praying for a proper
investigation.

3. We are of the opinion that if the
High Courts entertain such writ petitions,
then they will be flooded with such writ
petitions and will not be able to do any other
work except dealing with such writ petitions.
Hence, we have held that the complainant
must avail of his alternate remedy to
approach the Magistrate concerned under
Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the
Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is
satisfied, registration of the first information
report
and
also
ensure
a
proper
investigation in the matter, and he can also
monitor the investigation."

(Emphasis supplied)

14. A principled and really aggrieved
citizen with clean hands must have free
access to invoke the power under Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C.
which
warrants
the
application of judicial mind. It protects the
citizens. This provision serves to safeguard
citizens' rights; however, when malicious
litigations are pursued to harass fellow
citizens, measures should be taken to thwart
such abuse. The situation can be viewed
from a different perspective.

15. When the complainants are
lawyers, the pivotal role of a lawyer hinges
upon their integrity and professional
conduct. Justice Krishna Aiyar, speaking for
the bench in Bar Council of Maharashtra v.
M.V. Dabolkar15, highlighted that a lawyer's
primary duty is to administer justice, which
entails adhering meticulously to ethical
1410 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
standards to maintain the community's trust
in them as custodians of justice. "Law is not
a commodity to be traded in briefs; it
transcends no merchandise."

16. In Whirlpool Corporation v.
Registrar of Trade Marks16, the Supreme
Court was of the view that under Article 226
of the Constitution, the High Court, having
regard to the facts of the case, has the
discretion to entertain or not to entertain a
writ petition. But the High Court has
imposed upon itself certain restrictions one
of which is that if an effective and
efficacious remedy is available, the High
Court should not normally exercise its
jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy as
has been consistently held by this Court not
to operate as a bar in at least three
contingencies, namely, where the writ
petition has been filed for the enforcement
of any of the fundamental rights or where
there has been a violation of the principle of
natural justice or where the order or
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction
or the vires of the act is challenged.

17. The relevant paragraph of Sudhir
Bhaskarrao
Tambe
case
(supra)
is
extracted herein below in which the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has relied and referred Sakiri
Vasu v. State of U.P. (supra):

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri
Vasu v. State of U.P. [Sakiri Vasu v. State of
U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
440, that if a person has a grievance that his
FIR has not been registered by the police, or
having been registered, proper investigation
is not being done, then the remedy of the
aggrieved person is not to go to the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, but to approach the Magistrate
concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If
such an application under Section 156(3)
CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima
facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be
registered, or if it has already been
registered,
he
can
direct
proper
investigation to be done which includes in
his discretion, if he deems it necessary,
recommending change of the investigating
officer, so that a proper investigation is done
in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri
Vasu case [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.,
(2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 :
AIR 2008 SC 907] because what we have
found in this country is that the High Courts
have been flooded with writ petitions
praying for registration of the first
information report or praying for a proper
investigation.

3. We are of the opinion that if the
High Courts entertain such writ petitions,
then they will be flooded with such writ
petitions and will not be able to do any other
work except dealing with such writ petitions.
Hence, we have held that the complainant
must avail of his alternate remedy to
approach the Magistrate concerned under
Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the
Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is
satisfied, registration of the first information
report
and
also
ensure
a
proper
investigation in the matter, and he can also
monitor the investigation."

(Emphasis supplied)

18. In M. Subramaniam & Anr.
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of
the view that when any power is expressly
granted by the statute, it is impliedly
included in the ground, even without special
mention, every power and every control of
the denial of which would render the grant
itself ineffective. Where an act confers
jurisdiction, it impliedly also grants the
power to do all such acts or employ such
means as are essentially necessary for its
execution.
5 All. Neelam Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1411

19. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the Waseem Haider case (supra) has
occasioned to deal with a similar case where
the petitioner had approached the High
Court seeking mandamus for registration of
F.I.R. against the respondents. While
declining the petitioner's prayer, the coordinate Bench of this Court was of the
opinion that the Code of Criminal Procedure
incorporates enough safeguards for victims
and the accused. It lays down detailed
procedures for conducting an investigation,
filing of final report, taking cognizance, and
conducting the trial. It provides enough
safeguards against the illegal action of
police. It is a self contained code and
comprehensive on all aspects of criminal
law. A complainant has statutorily engrafted
remedies to ensure that his complaint is
taken to its logical end. Thus, he must first
exhaust said remedies and cannot invoke
extraordinary writ remedy as a matter of
course, even when a crime is not registered
and there is no progress in the investigation.

20. A writ of mandamus seeking to
compel the police to fulfil its statutory
obligation under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C.
may be refused to the complainant if they
have not first pursued alternative remedies
available under Section/s 154(3), 156(3),
190, and 200 of the Cr.P.C., unless the
complainant falls within the four exceptions
outlined in the Whirlpool Corporation
(supra) case.

21. We respectfully say, the Lalita
Kumari case (supra) does not pertain to the
issue of entertainment of writ of mandamus
for compelling the police to perform its
statutory duty under Section 154 Cr.P.C.
without availing alternative remedy under
Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 and 200 Cr.P.C.
Moreover, it was not a case Under Article
226 of the Constitution, where alternative
remedy has been exhausted by the
complainant or the writ petition has been
filed for the enforcement of any of the
Fundamental Rights or; where there has
been a violation of the principle of natural
justice or; where the order or proceedings
are whole without jurisdiction, or the vires
of an Act is challenged.

22. Merely lodging a complaint with
the police regarding the commission of a
cognizable offence does not automatically
entitle the complainant to invoke writ
jurisdiction to seek a writ of mandamus
directing the police to register an FIR. This
is especially true in cases where there are
allegations and counter-allegations between
two parties involved in the dispute. If,
subsequently, one party clandestinely seeks
relief under writ jurisdiction to compel the
registration of an FIR against the police,
particularly targeting high-ranking officers
in the district, with apparent ulterior motives
driven by a history of serious cases
registered against them, aimed at seeking
retribution from the police, as evidenced by
the circumstances of the present case.

23. The complainants, who have been
aggrieved by the illegal actions of the
petitioner's husband and have formally
reported the incident to the police, their
complaint being reported in the General
Diary, have not been arrayed as respondents
for reasons known only to the petitioner. The
contents of the complaint appear patently
false, and the initiation of criminal
proceedings appears to be motivated by
malice and ill-intent, with the aim of seeking
revenge against the neighbours and settling
personal scores with the police. This is
evident
from
the
complaints
dated
26.02.2024 and 28.02.2024, as well as from
video recordings captured by CCTV
cameras installed at the police station.
1412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Furthermore, the allegations made by the
petitioner in the complaint dated 26.2.2024
are so outlandish and inherently improbable
that no reasonable person could conclude
that there is even a shred of truth to the
claims therein.

24. Essentially, on one hand their is the
petitioner's husband, who is an advocate,
allegedly
engaged
in
abusive
and
threatening
behaviour
towards
the
neighbours,
including
women,
while
apparently intoxicated, as evidenced by
CCTV footage. This behaviour occurred in
the context of an attempt to encroach upon
public land. On the other hand, there are
neighbours,
including
women
and
advocates, filed notarized affidavits on
Rs.100
stamp
paper,
detailing
their
grievances. Both parties approached the
police, who responded to a neighbours
phone call by bringing the petitioner's
husband
to
the
police
station
and
summoning additional forces to maintain to
bring the law and order situation under
control.

25. Against this backdrop, the
petitioner
filed
a
complaint
dated
26.02.2024 at the police station, expressing
dissatisfaction with the non-registration of
an FIR against various officials, including
the Commissioner of Police, District
Prayagraj, the Deputy Commissioner of
Police, the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, the Station House Officer of P.S.
Colonelganj, and S.I. Sandeep Yadav posted
at Colonelganj, along with the Public
Relations Officer of the Commissioner of
Police, District Prayagraj. The petitioner has
now filed a writ petition under Article 226
of the Constitution seeking a directive for
the registration of an FIR. It is worth noting
that the advocates who filed the complaints
dated 26.02.2024 and 28.02.2024, namely
Arun Sharma, Alok Srivastava, Dileep
Srivastava, Prabal Pratap Srivastava, and
Aniruddha Maurya, have not been arrayed
as respondents in the instant writ petition.
Additionally, it is surprising to note that no
accusations have been levied against them
throughout the entirety of the petition.
Moreover, neither have the other group of
advocates who lodged the complaints dated
26.02.2024 and 28.02.2024 approached this
Court.

26. The principal issue before this
Court is whether, in light of the provisions
contained in Chapters XII and XV of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, a writ of
mandamus can be issued to the police
authorities to register an F.I.R. on the basis
of
a
complaint
containing
certain
indictments against the police officer by
ignoring disputed facts containing counter
allegations of a serious nature.

27. It is an admitted fact that the
petitioner's
husband
is
a
practising
Advocate of this Court and involved in the
criminal history of four cases outlined
herein: (a) Case Crime No.1090 of 2004,
under Sections 307, 286, 332, 353 I.P.C. and
Section 7 of C.L.A. Act, registered at P.S.
Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, (b) Case
Crime No.1092 of 2004, under Sections 336,
332, 147, 148, 427 I.P.C. and Public
Property Damages Act, registered at P.S.
Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, (c) Case
Crime No.1094 of 2004, under Sections 147,
148, 149, 307, 332, 353, 427, 442, 286, 332
I.P.C., registered at P.S. Colonelganj,
District Prayagraj, (d) Case Crime No.2118
of 1998, under Sections 307, 504, 427 I.P.C.,
registered at P.S. Colonelganj, District
Prayagraj. The outcome of these cases
remains uncertain at this juncture. However,
it is regrettable that Advocates are resorting
to unethical practices by invoking the writ
5 All. Neelam Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1413
jurisdiction of this Court under the pretext of
fundamental rights infringement, while in
reality, it appears to be an attempt to settle a
personal vendetta with the police. This is
evident, particularly considering that the
petitioner is currently facing four serious
criminal cases in the same police station.

28. Based on the forgoing discussion
and
on
thorough
deliberations
and
examination
of
records
containing
complaints filed by both parties, affidavits
filed by the advocates and other neighbours,
who have called the police at the spot,
scrutiny of CCTV footage, reasons for
mobilization of police from the nearest
police station to maintain law and order and
non-joinder of necessary parties before this
Court, we are of the view that this is not a fit
case where indulgence of this Court is
warranted. The proceedings initiated by the
petitioner are an abuse of the process of law,
and any indulgence by this Court would
have an adverse effect on the administration
of justice and detrimentally impact the
morale of the police, an institution tasked
with upholding law and order in civil
society.

29. Further, we have no hesitation to
record our finding that the petitioner has
approached
this
Court
under
writ
jurisdiction with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the police and with
the view to spite them due to private
personal grudge and does not call for the
exercise of extraordinary powers of this
Court to direct the Principal Secretary
(Home) Uttar Pradesh to register F.I.R.
against the respondents.

30. Parting with the facts of this case,
there is another issue of vital importance;
the complainant is the wife of an advocate
on one side and the other side, a group of
neighbours,
including
dozens
of
advocates. Initially, the dispute was
between the two group of advocates
majorly; the police reached at the spot on
receipt of a phone call by one of the
parties, and subsequently, the neighbours
lodged a complaint against the assailant
Advocate., surprisingly, the writ was filed
only against police officers, and other
neighbours, have not been arrayed as
respondents in the instant writ petition,
nor have any accusations been made
against them in the entirety of the petition
and in a dramatic twist to the scenario,
everyone, including the aggrieved party,
brandished their guns towards the police in
a shocking turn of events, for reasons
known only to the petitioner,.

31. Thus it is apt to quote, Kailash
Gambhir J, speaking for the Bench in
Baker Oils Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. v.
Baker Hughes Ltd. And others,17 that the
Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council
of India Rules prescribe Rules for
professional conduct and ethics for
lawyers. It cannot be forgotten that anyone
who has been graced with the owner of
wearing of robes is the officer of the
Court, and his prime duty is to assist the
Court in the administration of justice. The
Rules of Conduct, as per Bar Council of
India Rules, may act as a guardian angel
for ensuring the moral conduct of the
lawyers, but the legacy of the traditions of
the Bar cannot be bedaubled by a few for
lucre of commercial gains. A lawyer
cannot forget that this is a novel profession
not only because he enjoys an aristocratic
position in society but also because it
obligates him to be worthy of the
community's confidence in him as a
vehicle of achieving justice. The rules of
the conduct of this profession with its ever
expending horizons are governed by the
1414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bar and by the cannons of conscience of
the members of the calling of justice of
being the Smaritance of the society,

32. It is seemingly interesting to
emphasize the introductory part of Lawyers
and Justice: An Ethical Study18 the book's
central idea is that the moral activism as an
appropriate role conception. It respects each
lawyer's personal autonomy and enhances
the public welfare. The relevant excerpts are
produced hereinafter:

"The law, Holmes said, is no brooding
omnipresence in the sky. But if that is true,
it is because we encounter the legal system
in the form of flesh-and-blood human
beings: the police if we are unlucky, but for
the (marginally) luckier majority, the
lawyers. For practical purposes, the lawyers
are the law.

This is why the professional ethics
of lawyers matters to us. Since the law as it
touches us cannot be different from what
lawyers do, it will not be better than lawyers
care to make it. The commonest and bitterest
complaint against the legal profession is
that lawyers do not give a damn about
justice, or, when they do, it is despite their
profession rather than because of it. This
means that the law has to do with justice
only accidentally.