# Smt. Manorama Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 10 ILRA 1034
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-12
- **Bench:** Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-manorama-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49255
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article227
-
Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections 323, 506, 354(Kha) &
3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va) - SC/ST Act
1987-application moved by the victim for
recording the statement u/s 164 CrPC a
third
time,
the
I.O.
moved
another
application for the same purpose but it
was rejected by CJM-There is nothing in
law to prevent the I.O. from moving
application for recording the statement of
10 All. Smt. Manorama Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1035
victim u/s 164 CrPC-For certain good
reasons, the statement can be recorded
but that does not mean I.O. can keep on
giving application otherwise whole system
shall crumble-Victim assigned no good
reason for a third time and she is trying to
use the law as a tool in her hand-Thus, the
court concerned rightly dismissed the
application.(Para 1 to 11)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

## Text

1034 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordance with law. There is no illegality
or error in it, which may call for any
interference by this Court. The contentions
raised by learned counsel for the petitioners
are not tenable which are hereby repelled.
The petition is misconceived and lacks
merit in regard to challenge to the
impugned order dated 20.09.2023 and it is
liable to be dismissed to that extent.

13. The other grounds as argued by
the learned counsel for the parties are
concerned, they may be argued before the
concerned court, who may consider the
same in accordance with law. This Court
does not express any opinion on the same.

14. At this stage, learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that the petitioner
has also moved an application under
Section 151 C.P.C. on 25.09.2023 for adinterim injunction but the same has not
been considered till date. On a query being
put as to why it has not been considered, he
submits that on account of strike of lawyers
no orders could be passed on the same,
therefore, the allegation for not considering
the application can not be levelled against
the court concerned.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
at this stage, submits that the petition may
be disposed of with a direction to the
concerned court to consider the application
for
interim
injunction
filed
by
the
petitioners
after
hearing
the
parties
including the caveator. To which there is
no objection by the other side.

16. In view of above, this petition is
dismissed in regard to prayer for settingaside the order dated 20.09.2023 in
Original Suit No.723 of 2023 and disposed
of in regard to other prayers without
expressing any opinion thereon with liberty
to the petitioners to press their application
before the concerned court on the date
fixed and thereafter. However in case the
same could not be considered on the date
fixed and disposed of within a reasonable
period thereafter despite assistance by the
petitioners, they may move appropriate
application before the concerned court for
expeditious disposal of the applications,
which may be considered by the concerned
court in accordance with law and pass
appropriate orders thereon expeditiously
and proceed accordingly as per law. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1034
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JYOTSNA SHARMA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 6848 of
2023(Criminal)

Smt. Manorama Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Upendra Kumar Pushkar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sri D.B.
Singh

A.
Criminal
Law-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article227
-
Indian
Penal
Code,1860-Sections 323, 506, 354(Kha) &
3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va) - SC/ST Act
1987-application moved by the victim for
recording the statement u/s 164 CrPC a
third
time,
the
I.O.
moved
another
application for the same purpose but it
was rejected by CJM-There is nothing in
law to prevent the I.O. from moving
application for recording the statement of
10 All. Smt. Manorama Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1035
victim u/s 164 CrPC-For certain good
reasons, the statement can be recorded
but that does not mean I.O. can keep on
giving application otherwise whole system
shall crumble-Victim assigned no good
reason for a third time and she is trying to
use the law as a tool in her hand-Thus, the
court concerned rightly dismissed the
application.(Para 1 to 11)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Upendra Kumar Pushkar,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel
for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 and learned
A.G.A. for the State are present.

2. This petition has been filed by the
petitioner with prayer as below:

"A. To set aside the order dated
22.05.2023 passed by Learned Special
Court SC/ST, District-Agra as in Case
Crime No. 178 of 2023 under sections 323,
506,
354(kha)
of
I.P.C.,
3(1)(da),
3(1)(dha) and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act 1987
(Amendment 2015) at Police Station-
New Agra, District- Agra on the
application dated 22.05.2023 filed by
(victim)/petitioner for recording her restatement under section 164 of Cr.P.C.
before video graphy has been rejected.

B. Issue a order or direction
directing the Learned Special Court
SC/ST, District-Agra to record the restatement of Victim/petitioner before
the videographi in Case Crime No. 178
of 2023 under sections 323, 506,
354(kha) of I.P.C., 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha)
and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act 1987 (Amendment
2015) at Police Station- New Agra,
District- Agra."

3. The relevant facts of the case are as
below-:

The petitioner lodged an F.I.R.
naming four persons including respondents
3 and 4 with the allegations that she was
molested, disrobed and was put to mental,
physical and economic exploitation. It is
alleged in the F.I.R. that the opposite party
no.3 had taken Rs. 1,50,000/- from her,
giving her a false assurance for securing a
job and now, his wife, father and brother
have been threatening her and not letting
her continue with her PhD course etc.

4. On the basis of this information,
Crime No. 178 of 2023 under sections 323,
506, 354(kha) of I.P.C., 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha)
and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act 1987 (Amendment
2015) at Police Station- New Agra,
District-
Agra,
was
registered
and
investigated upon. During the course of
investigation, the statement of victim under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on
29.04.2023. Thereafter, her statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded for the
second time on 11.05.2023. The victimfirst informant moved an application,
almost 11 days after her second statement
i.e. on 22.05.2023, saying that earlier
statements were not correctly recorded. She
said that the Magistrate did not write what
was told by her, Therefore, her statement
under section 164 Cr.P.C. may be recorded
once again with a videography of the
proceedings.
This
application
was
dismissed on 22.05.2023.

5. From the perusal of the counter
affidavit,
following
further
facts
are
revealed. Before the application was moved
by the victim for recording of her statement
a third time, the I.O. had moved another
application for the same purpose. The
C.J.M heard on this application and
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dismissed the same, vide order dated
16.05.2023. Paper no.60 is the copy of the
order (dated 16.05.2023) passed by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra.

6. From perusal of the facts as given
in the counter affidavit as well as the copy
of the order dated 16.05.2023, this is amply
clear that the court rejected the application
of the I.O., observing that the statement of
the
complainant
have
already
been
recorded two times earlier. On both the
occasions, statements under section 164
Cr.P.C. were recorded by different judicial
officers. Every time the victim threw
similar allegations against the judicial
officers, saying that they did not write what
was actually told by her. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate observed that it does not appeal
to reason that both the officers were
interested in pressurizing the victim and
kept recording the wrong statements. The
Chief Judicial Magistrate also observed that
as the judicial officers had given a
mandatory certificate that 'the statement'
was given by her and recorded by them,
hence, they cannot be questioned.

7. From the papers on record this has
come to light that the petitioner, while
moving this petition under Article 227,
conveniently concealed the fact that earlier
an application was moved by the I.O. for
recording her statement for the third time
and same was rejected.

8. There is nothing in law to prevent
the I.O. from moving an application for
recording
of
statement
of
the
witness/victim under section 164 Cr.P.C.
for the second time or so on. For certain
good reasons, the statement under sections
164 Cr.P.C. can be recorded more than
once. But that doesn't mean that victim or
the I.O. can keep on giving such
applications for recording of statements any
number of times without any good cause.
Doing so, will destroy the sanctity of such
statements and in my view, shall frustrate
the very purpose behind such statements.
This is conceivable that there may be
instances where some new fact may come
to light during investigation and a second
statement might become necessary. This is
just to elaborate the point involved. In such
circumstance, a second statement may be
recorded. However, in case, such a practice
is allowed to be routinized, without
imposing necessary checks and balances,
whole system shall crumble. In my view, if
I.O. or the victim is given a free hand and
things are left to their whims, the
investigation
may
go
haywire.
The
consequences can be far reaching. The
system of law has to follow a discreet and
prudent path. Any attempt to discredit the
system must be foiled.

9. As far as veracity of the statements,
the attending facts and circumstances,
including the victim's refusal to put her
signature etc. are concerned, same can
appropriately be dealt with at the time of
trial, if required. Incidentally, this may be
noted that the victim shall have all the
opportunity to place her side before the trial
court concerned, in case, the accused
persons are put to trial.

10. In my opinion there were no good
reasons to record statement of the victim
for a third time. The court concerned
rightly dismissed her application. My
opinion is that the petitioner unsuccessfully
tried to to use the law as a tool in her hand.
Such practice needs to be discouraged
therefore, while dismissing this petition, I
impose a cost of Rs. 20,000/- on the
petitioner, which shall be deposited in
favour of State by furnishing a demand
10 All. Pradeep Mohan Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1037
draft within three weeks. In case of failure
to do so, the Registry shall issue a recovery
certificate to District Magistrate concerned,
who shall take steps for recovery of the
same, as arrears of land revenue. When the
amount is deposited or recovered, the same
shall be transferred in favour of State.

11. With the aforesaid direction, the
present habeas corpus writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2023) 10 ILRA 1037
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 7271 of
2023(Civil)

Pradeep Mohan Chaudhary & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Praveen Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article 227 - Indian Succession Act,1925Section 278-maintainability of -no bar
under succession act for filing of a single
application
for
grant
of
letters
of
administration in respect of two different
Wills-as per provisions of Order 2 Rule 3
of CPC petitioners in the same suit may
unite several cause of action against the
defendents, therefore, applying for Letter
of Administration by the petitioners with
two wills annexed would be permissibleBoth, in instances where estates of the
deceased persons mentioned in their
respective Wills are separate, or not
clearly demarcated, it would be for the
courts to see that separate applications
for letters of administration, each with a
single Will annexed, are filed for obviating
any confusion with regard to the rights,
duties and liabilities of the administrator
in respect of the respective estates of the
deceased persons under the respective
Wills. (Para 4, 5)

B. Accrual of cause of action is a sine qua
non for a suit to be filed. Cause of action is
a bundle of facts which is required to be
proved to grant relief to the plaintiff.
Cause of action not only refers to the
infringement but also the material facts
on which right is founded. Section 20 CPC
recognizes the territorial jurisdiction of
the courts inter alia where cause of action
wholly or in part arises.(Para 33)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Shivnarayan Vs Maniklal & ors. (2020) 11 SCC
629

2. Adminr. Gen. Vs Dharamvir (1997) AIR All
158

3. Illachi Devi Vs Jain Sty. (2003) 8 SCC 413

4. Raj. HC Adv. Assn. Vs U.O.I. (2001) 2 SCC
294

5. Indian Performing Rights Sty Ltd. Vs Sanjay
Dalia (2015) 10 SCC 161

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. The aforesaid petition has been
filed with the following prayer:-

"i) issue any order or direction to
the Court of Addl. District Judge-16,
Kanpur Nagar to decide the letter of
Administration Case No.154/70/2013 (Dr.
A.M. Chaudhary & Ors. vs. State of UP &