- (1.) This revision has been filed assailing the validity of the order dated 23.1.2014 passed by C.J.M. District Mathura whereby he refused to record the statement of the revisionist Smt. Meena under Section 164 Cr. P.C. in pursuance of case Crime No. 489 of 2013, under Section 420, 494, 376, 498-A IPC P.S. Kotwali District Mathura. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. Record as well as impugned order has been perused. The contention of the counsel is that the investigation of the case has not proceeded on the right lines and even the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer. The submission is that the revisionist is under the threat of dire consequences and even the investigating officer seems to be hands in gloves with the accused and is exercising coercive pressure on her to withdraw the case. The contention is that the revisionist had lodged an FIR against opp. party Nos. 3 and 4 under Section 420, 494, 376 and 498A IPC. but because of the unfair attitude of the investigating officer she has no chance to get justice. The only prayer made before this Court is that the Magistrate should be directed to record her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. so that the true version may come on record and the investigating officer will not get the chance to bring on record something which she never stated or to record a doctored statement suited to the interests of accused.
(2.) I have gone through the impugned order which reveals that a report from the police station was sought by the Magistrate and as the investigating officer did not feel the need of getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate also did not deem it fit to record the same.
(3.) Ordinarily the Magistrate is not bound to record the statement of a stranger or the statement of witnesses who have not been sponsored by the investigating officer. But in the present case, the situation is somewhat different in the perspective of the offences which have been alleged by the revisionist accused. In fact the Magistrate concerned seems to be oblivious to Section 164(5-A)(a) which was inserted by Act 13 of 2013 coming into effect from 3.2.2013. It shall be relevant and useful to extract the same herein below: [(5A)(a) In cases punishable under Section 354, Section 354A, Section 354B, Section 354C, Section 354D, sub-section(1) or sub-section(2) of Section 376, Section 376A, Section 376B, Section 376C, Section 376D, Section 376E or Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the Judicial Magistrate shall record the statement of the person against whom such offence has been committed in the manner prescribed in sub-section(5), as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the police: The perusal of the aforesaid provision newly inserted in Criminal Procedure Code would make it clear that as soon as the commission of the offence was brought to the notice of the police, it was incumbent upon the police to get the statement of the victim against whom the offence was said to have been committed recorded.;