Lucknow, Jan 5 (PTI) The Allahabad High Court on Tuesday banned people from directly moving it for direction to police to register an FIR on their complaints without availing alternative statutory remedies of approaching district police superintendents or a magisterial court for it.

The Lucknow bench of the high court gave the ruling amid a deluge of people approaching it directly for directions to police for lodging FIRs without availing alternative remedies under sections 154(3), 156(3) and 190 and 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

While section 154 (3) provides for a complainant to approach the district SP if the police station's SHO refuses to register the FIR, section 156 (3) and 190 provides for the complainant moving a magisterial court for registration of an FIR in case the police refuses to register it.

The verdict was delivered by a bench of justices Ramesh Sinha and Chandra Dhari Singh on a petition by Ambedkar Nagar resident Waseem Haider who had moved the high court for a direction to local police to register an FIR on his complaint already given to the police.

“The informant or victim after furnishing first information regarding a cognizable offence does not become functus-officio (automatically entitled) for seeking a writ of mandamus for compelling the police authorities to perform their statutory duty under Section 154 CrPC in case the FIR is not registered,” the court said in its ruling, dismissing Haider's plea.

The bench dismissed the plea expressing concern over a deluge of writ petitions being filed in the high court directly without availing remedies under section 154(3), 156(3) and 190 and 200 of CrPC.

The bench, however, clarified that in pursuance of a Supreme Court verdict such petitions can be filed directly in the high court where the matter involves the enforcement of any Fundamental Right or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice.

In cases where orders or proceedings are without jurisdiction or the constitutionality of an Act may also be challenged, the bench said.

Dismissing the petition, the bench asked Haider to move the concerned magisterial court for necessary direction in this regard.

The bench was of the view that the high court was being unnecessarily overburdened with such petitions while the victim or informant has the alternative remedy to approach local courts.

Writing the verdict for the division bench, justice Singh said, “The proposed accused against whom the first information of commission of a cognizable offence is made, is not a necessary party to be made in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,”

(The above story is verified and authored by Press Trust of India (PTI) staff. PTI, India’s premier news agency, employs more than 400 journalists and 500 stringers to cover almost every district and small town in India.. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)