# Kirti Verma v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 896
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-26
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3822 of 2026
- **Bench:** Rajiv Gupta, Achal Sachdev
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kirti-verma-v-state-of-u-p-54218
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. अतः वाद के गुण दोर् पर क बना कोई क टप्प णी क कए हु ए आवेदक को उपरोक्त कवणत अपराध मेंसंबंक धत न् या यालय की
सन् तु क ष्ट पर व्य क क्त गत बंध-पत्र एवं कअधक धनराक श के दो स् था नीय प्र क तभू प्रस्तुत करने करने पर क नम् न क कलखत शतोर्ं
के साथ जमानत पर छोड क दया जाय।

1.आवेदक क ववेचना या परीक्ष ण के दौरान कअभयोजन साक्ष् यों के साथ छेड छाड नहीं करेगा।

2.आवेदक कअभयोजन साक क्ष यों व पीक ड ता/ क शकायतकतार् को डरायेगा/धमकायेगा नहीं ।

3.आवेदक न् या यालय के आदेशों का पालन करेगा, वह परीक्ष ण के दौरान क बना कोई अनावश्य क स् थ गन क लए
क नयत क कतथ पर न् या यालय में उकपस्थ त होगा तथा परीक्ष ण में ईमानदारी से सहयोग करेगा।

4.आवेदक जमानत पर क रहा होने के बाद जमानत की स् व तंत्र ता का दुरू पयोग नही करेगा और क कसी भी अपराक धक
कगकतकवध में क लप्त नहीं होगा न कोई अपराक धक कृत्प्य करेगा।

5.आवेदक प्रत् यक्ष या अप्रत् यक्ष रू प से मामले के तथ्यों से कपररचत क कसी भी व्य क क्त या पुक लसकअधकाक रयों को
कोई प्र लोभन या धमकी नहीं देगा न ही उनसे कोई वायदा करेगा, क जसकेकारण उन् हें न् या यालय में तथ्यों को उजागर करने से क वरत
रहना पडेे़।

उपरोक्त शतोर्ं में से क कसी के उल्लं घन के मामले में, परीक्ष ण न् या यालय आवेदक की जमानत
क नयमानुसार रद्द करने को स् व तंत्र है।
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 896
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3822 of 2026

Kirti Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
(i) Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing re-recording of statement of the victim
under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023;
(ii) Whether alleged non-compliance of procedural safeguards, particularly non-reading over of
statement, warrants exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction for directing a second statement
under Section 183 B.N.S.S.;
2 All. Kirti Verma Vs. State of U.P.
897
(iii) Whether, in the facts of the case, any exceptional circumstance existed justifying
interference by the High Court.

Headnotes
Criminal Procedure - Statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. - Nature and object:
Held: Section 183 B.N.S.S. provides a judicially supervised mechanism for recording statements/confessions to
ensure voluntariness and reliability - It incorporates safeguards including explanation of rights, voluntariness,
and reading over of statement - Such statement carries higher evidentiary value than police statements.
[Paras 9-11]

Criminal Procedure - Re-recording of statement - Not a rule:
Held: The statutory scheme does not contemplate repeated or second recording of statement under Section
183 B.N.S.S. as a matter of course - Such statements are ordinarily recorded only once and meant to
preserve reliable evidence. [Para 12]

Criminal Procedure - Extraordinary jurisdiction - Scope for second statement:
Held: High Court, in exercise of powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and inherent jurisdiction,
may direct re-recording only in exceptional cases - such as coercion, lack of voluntariness, procedural
illegality, or compromised integrity of the statement - Power is discretionary and not routine. [Paras 13, 16]

Criminal Procedure - Procedural safeguards - Allegation of violation:
Held: Non-reading over of statement, if established, may constitute a serious procedural lapse affecting
voluntariness and authenticity - However, mere allegation without substantiation is insufficient to invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction. [Paras 15-16]

Criminal Procedure - Judicial review - Scope of interference:
Held: Where record indicates that statement was voluntarily made, read over to the maker, and duly signed,
and procedural requirements were complied with, no ground exists for directing re-recording - Absence of
extraordinary circumstances disentitles relief. [Paras 18-20]

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Yogendra Yadav and others v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2014) 9 SCC 653 -
distinguished.

List of Acts / Statutes
Constitution of India; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

List of Keywords
Re-recording of statement; Voluntariness; Procedural safeguards; Habeas jurisdiction; Extraordinary
jurisdiction; Judicial confession; Victim statement; Reading over requirement; Abuse of process.

Case Arising From
Order dated 13.01.2026 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC Court No. 01, Azamgarh,
rejecting application for re-recording of statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S.

Appearance for Parties
For the Petitioner: Kirti Verma (in person)
For the Respondents: Learned A.G.A.
898 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Achal Sachdev, J.)

1. The petitioner has filed a certified copy of her statement in the present case recorded under
Section 183 B.N.S.S. before the Magistrate concerned.

2. Heard the petitioner Kirti Verma, who appears in person, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record and the case law cited by the petitioner.

3. The Petitioner, Kirti Verma, is complainant/victim in case crime number 320 of 2024, under
sections 70(1), 352, 351(1), 61(2) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, Azamgarh.

4. The petitioner, who is victim herein, has filed the present writ petition seeking issue of writ,
order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent to re-record
the statement of the victim/petitioner again under section 183 of B.N.S.S. 2023, in pursuance of
order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional District & Session Jude, FTC Court No.
01, Azamgarh and issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Court may deem fit
and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The petitioner has submitted that the petition is being filed strictly in compliance with and
pursuant to the liberty granted by the order dated 13.01.2026 and is confined only to be procedural
aspect as indicated by the learned court below and the petitioner is not seeking adjudication on the
merits of the case, nor raising any factual controversy. The petitioner further submits that her
statement has not been correctly recorded by the Magistrate and there has been gross violation of
the express provisions of Section 183 B.N.S.S., which necessitates directions of this Court for rerecording of her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S.

6. The learned Additional District & Session Judge, FTC Court No.01, Azamgarh in it's order
dated 13.01.2026, while disposing applications dated 08.12.2025 and 09.01.2026 for re-recording
of her statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., made the following observations:-

(a). the Statement under section 183 B.N.S.S. is ordinarily recorded only once.

(b). any direction for recording such statement again can be issued only by the Hon'ble
High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(c). until the procedural statement is clarified, it would not be appropriate to proceed
further in the matter.

7. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 183 of B.N.S.S.

"183. (1). Any Magistrate of the District in which the information about commission of
any offence has been registered, may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any
confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under
any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards but before the commencement
of the inquiry or trial:
2 All. Kirti Verma Vs. State of U.P.
899

Provided that any confession or statement made under this sub-section may also be
recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of
an offence:

Provided further that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any
power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.

(2). The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person
making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as
evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon
questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.

(3). If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the
Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise
the detention of such person in police custody.

(4). Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 316 for
recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the
confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the
following effect:'

"I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does
so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this
confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to
the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of
the statement made by him.

Signed) A. B.

Magistrate."

(5). Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section (1) shall be
recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of
the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to
administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.

(6) (a) In cases punishable under section 64, section 65, section 66, section 67, section
68, section 69, section 70, section 71, section 74, section 75, section 76, section 77, section 78,
section 79 or section 124 of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 the Magistrate shall record the
statement of the person against whom such offence has been committed in the manner specified
in sub-section (5), as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the police:

Provided that such statement shall, as far as practicable, be recorded by a woman
Magistrate and in her absence by a male Magistrate in the presence of a woman:
900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided further that in cases relating to the offences punishable with imprisonment
for ten years or more or imprisonment for life or with death, the Magistrate shall record the
statement of the witness brought before him by the police officer:

Provided also that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently
mentally or physically disabled, the Magistrate shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a
special educator in recording the statement:

Provided also that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently
mentally or physically disabled, the statement made by the person, with the assistance of an
interpreter or a special educator, shall be recorded through audio-video electronic means
preferably by mobile phone;

(b) a statement recorded under clause (a) of a person, who is temporarily or permanently
mentally or physically disabled, shall be considered a statement in lieu of examination-in-chief, as
specified in section 142 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 such that the maker of the
statement can be cross-examined on such statement, without the need for recording the same at the
time of trial.

(7). The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward
it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried."

8. Moreover, Section 176 of B.N.S.S. relates to Procedure for Investigation and allows
optional audio-video recording of statements during police investigation including any statement
made to the police and for rape/sexual offence cases victim statements must preferably be recorded
at their residence or place of choice by a woman officer and may use audio-video means.

9. Section 183 of B.N.S.S. corresponds to Section 164 Cr.P.C. and it mandates safeguards for
voluntariness. The statements including confessions can be recorded in writing or through audiovideo electronic means preferably by mobile phones. For certain vulnerable cases, example rape
victims or disable persons audio-video recording is required or strongly preferred often by a
woman Magistrate when applicable.

10. The primary purpose of Section 183 of B.N.S.S. is to provide a safe voluntary and
judicially supervised mechanism for recording confessions (by the accused) and statements
(witnesses or the victims) during a criminal investigation or even afterwards before inquiry or trial
begins and this ensures that these statements or confession are made freely and without coercion
and it carries higher reliability and evidentiary values as compared to ordinary police statements
recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. The procedural safeguards directs constitutional rights under
Article 20(3) and the Article 21 of the constitution against self incrimination and for fair procedure,
the core objectives of section 183 B.N.S.S. is to prevent police coercion or torture and police
officer cannot record confessions even though they may be adorned with magisterial powers. Only
a Judicial Magistrate can record a statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S., thus reducing risk of
forced or induced confessions but the Magistrate must ensure voluntariness on part of the person
making the statement. Magistrate must explain to the person making a confession or a statement
2 All. Kirti Verma Vs. State of U.P.
901
that the person is not bound to confess or give the statement and he must warn him prior to the
recording of the statement that it may be used as evidence against them.

11. In essence, Section 183 BNSS acts as a judicial filter between police investigation and trial
evidence, thereby capturing important statements/confessions in a protected, verifiable manner to
aid truth-finding while safeguarding against abuse of power. It balances effective prosecution with
protection of individual rights, with BNSS adding digital and victim-focused enhancements over
the old CrPC framework.

12. The provision does not contemplate or authorize "second" or repeated statements under
this section as a standard procedure. The purpose is to record a reliable, voluntary
statement/confession once, with evidentiary value (e.g., statements under this section can be used to
corroborate or contradict trial testimony, and confessions if voluntary can be substantive
evidence).There is no statutory mandate for multiple recordings of the same person's statement
under Section 183 BNSS. Police statements under Section 180 BNSS (old Section 161 CrPC) can
be recorded multiple times if needed during investigation, but magisterial statements under Section
183 BNSS are exceptional and meant to preserve evidence with higher reliability.

13. High Courts have supervisory powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and
Section 528 BNSS (old Section 482 CrPC) to intervene in criminal proceedings to prevent abuse,
secure ends of justice, or correct grave errors. In exceptional cases ' such as where a prior statement
under Section 183 was allegedly coerced, not voluntary, improperly recorded, or where fairness
demands re-recording (e.g., new material facts, witness hostility, or serious procedural lapses) and
a High Court may direct a fresh recording before a Magistrate as part of its extraordinary
jurisdiction but this is not a routine direction. The High Court may direct re-recording if the
original statement's integrity is seriously compromised, especially in sensitive cases involving
victims (e.g., sexual offences, POCSO), where the statement carries significant weight for
corroboration/contradiction at trial. While not every allegation will succeed, a credible claim of
non-reading over (a core procedural safeguard) provides strong grounds for High Court
intervention to order a second statement under Section 183 BNSS, to uphold fairness and prevent
misuse. Outcomes depend on case facts, evidence, and judicial discretion.

14. Learned Additional District Judge in its order dated 13.01.2026 has observed that any
direction for re-recording of the statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. can be issued only by
Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court but it is pertinent to mention here that High Court
cannot directly order or direct the recording of the second or additional statement under Section
183 B.N.S.S. in the sense of compelling the Magistrate to record another statement from the same
person as a routine or an investigative measure. The power to record a statement under Section 183
B.N.S.S. is discretionary and is typically initiated by- (i) the investigating officer to producing the
person (witness/victim or accused) and (ii) the person voluntarily approaching the Magistrate.

15. Section 183 B.N.S.S. like old section 164 Cr.P.C. incorporates strong safeguards to ensure
voluntariness and accuracy. The Magistrate must explain to the person that they are not bound to
make a statement or confession and that the confession may be used against them and the
Magistrate must have reason to believe about voluntariness after initial questioning and the
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
recorded statements must be read over and explain to the person making it moreover sign it or affix
thumb impression. Where the person making the statement is unable to read it thereby confirming
its correctness and especially in cases of sexual offenses, the Magistrate may resort to audio-video
recording. If the victim claims that the statement was not read over to him or her, it raises serious
questions about whether the procedural safeguards were followed as to its voluntariness and
authenticity and potential coercion or misunderstanding or clerical error and such lapses, if primafacie established by victims affidavit, may lead to interference. The direction for re-recording of
statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. may be issued if the original statements integrity is seriously
compromised. While not every allegation is bound to succeed, a credible claim of non-reading of
statement by the victim provides a strong ground for intervention to order a second statement under
Section 183 B.N.S.S. to promote fairness and prevent misuse.

16. Ordinarily no routine direction for second statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. can be
given but under exceptional circumstances. High Court in exercise of it's extraordinary jurisdiction,
if justified to rectify injustice, may issue directions for recording second statement under Section
183 B.N.S.S. but it cannot be exercised as a general rule where victim alleges that her statement
recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. was not read over to her or that she was not given an
opportunity to confirm its correctness. The High Court can in appropriate cases exercise its
extraordinary jurisdiction to direct a fresh recording of statement before the Magistrate and the
power is not a routine or an automatic power but is exercised by High Court or Supreme Court to
prevent abuse of process, to secure ends of justice or rectify grave procedural irregularities that
could lead to miscarriage of justice.

17. The case law Yogendra Yadav & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.(2014)9 SCC 653
does not apply to the facts of the present writ petition.

18. The petitioner, in order to substantiate her argument in support of the petition, has filed
certified copy of her statement recorded under Section 183 B.N.S.S. before the Court of Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Azamgarh.

19. Perusal of statement shows that statement was recorded on the basis of oral statement of
the victim and after recording of the statement the victim/petitioner had read the statement and it is
also noted that the victim gave the statement without any duress. The statement of the
victim/petitioner recorded by the Magistrate clearly shows that the petitioner had given the
statement without any duress and had read the statement and thereafter had signed the statement
and all the procedural aspects have been followed. Trial court vide its order dated 13.01.2026 has
rightly observed that the statement under section 183 B.N.S.S. is ordinarily recorded only once and
any direction for recording of such statement can be issued only by Hon'ble High Court or by
Hon'ble Supreme Court only under exceptional circumstances. The conditions under which High
Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court can issue directions for re-recording of his statement under
Section 183 B.N.S.S. has already been discussed above.

20. In the light of analysis given, we are of the opinion that there are no extraordinary
circumstances warranting the re-recording of the statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. and hence
2 All. In Re. Vs. Shri Hari Narayan Pandey Adv.
903
the instant writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly liable to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 903
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 3 of 2025

In Re. ...Applicant
Versus
Shri Hari Narayan Pandey Adv. ...Opposite Party

Issue for consideration
Criminal Contempt against an Advocate

Headnotes
Criminal Contempt-Proceedings for criminal contempt commenced on a reference under Section 15 of the
Act, 1971 made by Mr. Amit Mishra, the then Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Basti- against the contemnor Advocatecontemnor's words certainly scandalize and lower the authority of the Court within the meaning of Section
2(c)(i) of the Act of 1971- words were entirely unrelated to the proceedings of the Court-contemnor expressed
an early and unconditional apology in his affidavit-contemnor appeared before Mr. Amit Mishra at Raebareli
and tendered an unconditional apology-put in long years of practice and there is nothing to show that he has
indulged in contumacious conduct in the past- tendered unconditional apology at the earliest, which the
learned Civil Judge accepted-accept the contemnor's apology and discharge the notice issued to himcontempt matter is consigned to record. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
1. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

List of Keywords
Scandalize and lower the authority of the Court; unconditional apology

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant : Mr. Sudhir Mehrotra, Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party : Mr. Rakesh Pathak,
Advocate

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. These are proceedings for criminal contempt commenced on a reference under Section 15
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971') made by Mr. Amit Mishra, the
then Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Basti, against the contemnor, Mr. Hari Narayan Pandey, Advocate,