Allahabad High Court
CRLP/11862/2025 of LATA DWIVEDI Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. THE PRIN. SECY. REVENUE LKO. AND 7 OTHERS on 18 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11862 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents no.1 to 3. 2. In view of the proposed order notice to respondents no. 4
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11862 of 2025
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondents no.1 to 3.
2. In view of the proposed order notice to respondents no. 4 to 8 is dispensed with.
3. Instant petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing the respondents to investigate the matter after lodging the FIR against respondent nos. 4 to 8.
4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered or having been registered proper investigation is not being done then the remedy to the aggrieved person is not to go the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution but to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. (now under relevant provisions of B.N.S.S., 2023). The same principle has been approved and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Subramaniam and Another Vs. S. Janaki and Another, reported in (2020) 16 SCC
728.
5. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate. In case the said application is filed the learned Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law. (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) December 18, 2025 AKK Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Durgendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Lata Dwivedi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench