# Smt. Meena Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 283
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-03-04
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 619 of 2014
- **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-meena-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-42776
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Cr.P.C.-Section-497/401-Criminal RevisionAgainst order by Magistrate-refusing to
record the statement of applicant under
section-164 Cr.P.C.-on ground the I.O. be
hands in gloves with accused pressuring to
withdraw her case-offence under section
420, 464, 376, 498-A IPC-held-generally
without notice to opposite party-revision
can not be heard, but considering peculiar
facts of the case-revisionist not a strangerdelay
itself
defeat
the
justice-prayer
confined to get her statement recorded u/s
164 Cr.P.C.-
held-considering
amended
provision of section 164(5-A)(a) Cr.P.C.
effective
from
03.02.2013-right
of
revisionist to place her version on record-if
so prejudice shall caused to any one-order
impugned
quashed-necessary
direction
given to the Magistrate.

Held: Para-9&10

## Text

1 All] Smt. Meena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
283
must normally be exercised in such cases.
This observation, with respect, requiring that
the proviso to Rule 5 must normally be
exercised for the purpose of dealing with a
case in a just and equitable manner would
not be reflective of the correct position in
law. The subsequent decision in Subhash
Yadav
(supra)
only
holds
that
the
Government cannot dismiss an application
which has been moved after five years
blindfolded but has to apply its mind
rationally to all the facts and circumstances
of the case. In this regard, we clarify that the
second proviso to Rule 5 requires an
applicant, who invokes the power of
dispensation or relaxation under the first
proviso of the time limit of five years, to
make out a case of undue hardship by
elucidating, in writing, with necessary
documentary evidence and proof, the reasons
and
justification
for
the
delay.
The
Government may, in an appropriate case,
when it is satisfied on the basis of the
material that a case of undue hardship is
made out, exercise the power which is
conferred upon it under the first proviso to
Rule 5 of the Rules but this power has to be
exercised where a demonstrated case of
undue hardship is made out to the
satisfaction of the State Government. We
answer the reference accordingly in the
aforesaid terms.

31. These special appeals along with
other connected appeals shall now be
placed before the appropriate Bench in
accordance with the roster of work.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Criminal Revision No. 619 of 2014
Smt. Meena..... Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors...... Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shailendra Kumar Bharti, Sri Kalyan
Sundaram Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Cr.P.C.-Section-497/401-Criminal RevisionAgainst order by Magistrate-refusing to
record the statement of applicant under
section-164 Cr.P.C.-on ground the I.O. be
hands in gloves with accused pressuring to
withdraw her case-offence under section
420, 464, 376, 498-A IPC-held-generally
without notice to opposite party-revision
can not be heard, but considering peculiar
facts of the case-revisionist not a strangerdelay
itself
defeat
the
justice-prayer
confined to get her statement recorded u/s
164 Cr.P.C.-
held-considering
amended
provision of section 164(5-A)(a) Cr.P.C.
effective
from
03.02.2013-right
of
revisionist to place her version on record-if
so prejudice shall caused to any one-order
impugned
quashed-necessary
direction
given to the Magistrate.

Held: Para-9&10
9. Ordinarily before finally adjudicating
upon the revision this court issues notice
to the opp. party. But in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case this
court has not adopted the same course
because in that situation it could have
defeated the ends of justice. There is
hardly any chance for this revision to be
heard on merits in a measurable distance
of time due to staggering pendency of
cases in this court. Apart from this the
prayer of the revisionist is confined
simply to get her statement recorded.
Such a prayer is not likely to prejudice
any one. It is the right of the victim to
bring her version on record.

10. It is further directed that Magistrate
concerned on presentation of this order
shall after duly intimating the police
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
procure from the same an application of
request in this regard and shall thereafter
proceed to record the statement of the
alleged victim girl.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J.)

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 u/s
164 Cr.P.C. in pursuance of case Crime No.
489 of 2013, u/s 420, 494,376, 498-A IPC
P.S. Kotwali District Mathura.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
Record as well as impugned order has been
perused.

3. The contention of the counsel is
that the investigation of the case has not
proceeded on the right lines and even the
statement u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 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.

4. 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 u/s 164 Cr.P.C. the
Magistrate also did not deem it fit to
record the same.

5. 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 subsection(5), as soon as the commission of the
offence is brought to the notice of the
police:

6. 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.
1 All] Laddan alias Ishaq Vs. State
285

7. Apart from this, it is also apparent
that the revisionist is not a stranger to the
case, she is not any tom dick and harry
unconnected with the criminal transaction
which took place, nor can be said to be any
one sponsored on behalf of the accused to
prop up his defence. The judicial policy
which discouraged the recording of the
statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate
unless
the
request
came
from
the
investigating officer was with the view to
discourage
strangers
to
meddle
with
investigation. It was also with the view to
discourage and avoid the situation where the
accused himself may send up his own man to
the Magistrate and create defence evidence
in his favour. Such a judicial policy was also
with a view to avoid the court of the
Magistrates being crowed by such requests
and create an anarchic situation which could
have become unmanageable. In the present
matter the victim herself has the grievance
that her statement was not recorded by the
investigating officer. Her statement is the
most relevant statement in the facts and
circumstances of the case and if the
Magistrate records her statement u/s 164
Cr.P.C. it shall not be recording the statement
of any irrelevant person or a person
sponsored at the behest of some motivated
vested interest.

8. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and also the
amended position of law in criminal
procedure code this court finds it fit to set
aside the impugned order. It is further
directed that the matter is remanded back
with the direction that the application moved
by the revisionist with the prayer to record
her statement u/s 164 Cr.p.C. shall be
decided in accordance with law and in the
light of the observations made by this Court.
It is clarified that none of the observations
made by this court in this order shall be
construed to have any reflection on the merit
of the case nor shall be interpreted to the
prejudice of the accused side or any other
person concerned.

9.

Ordinarily
before
finally
adjudicating upon the revision this court
issues notice to the opp. party. But in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
this court has not adopted the same course
because in that situation it could have
defeated the ends of justice. There is hardly
any chance for this revision to be heard on
merits in a measurable distance of time due
to staggering pendency of cases in this court.
Apart from this the prayer of the revisionist
is confined simply to get her statement
recorded. Such a prayer is not likely to
prejudice any one. It is the right of the victim
to bring her version on record.

10. It is further directed that Magistrate
concerned on presentation of this order shall
after duly intimating the police procure from
the same an application of request in this
regard and shall thereafter proceed to record
the statement of the alleged victim girl.

11. The revision is allowed and the
impugned order dated 23.1.2014 passed by
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura is set
aside.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN SINHA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 1983

Laddan alias Ishaq..... Appellant
Versus
State...... Respondent