Allahabad High Court slaps ₹20k costs on litigant for repeated requests to re-record Section 164 CrPC statements

The Allahabad High Court recently imposed costs of ₹20,000 on a litigant for repeated requests to make fresh statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [Manorama Singh v State]..The Court observed that while there is no prohibition on submitting applications to record a fresh statement under Section 164 such applications cannot be filed any number of times without a good cause. .Justice Jyotsna Sharma further observed that repeatedly recording such statements would undermine the sanctity of such statements. .“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," the Court said. .The Court explained that a statement may be re-recorded in certain instances where some new fact comes to light or to elaborate an earlier statement. However, such re-recording of statements cannot be routine, the judge observed. .“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," the Court added. .Section 164 of the CrPC deals with the recording of confessions and statements by persons concerned with a criminal trial such as the complainant or victim, the witnesses and the accused..In the present case, a woman (complainant/ victim) who is alleged to have been molested and subjected to mental, physical, and economic exploitation had sought to record her statement a third time. During the investigation, the complainant's statement was recorded twice on different days by two different magistrates. Nearly 11 days after the second statement, the complainant requested that her earlier statements be re-recorded accurately and also asked for a video recording.The Investigating Officer (IO) had also submitted a similar application to record her statement a third time, which was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Agra.CJM noted that different judicial officers had earlier recorded the complainant's statements. As such, the magistrate was not convinced of the complainant's allegation that the judicial officers had not accurately recorded what she had conveyed. .The complainant, meanwhile, moved the High Court with her plea to re-record her statement a third time. The High Court agreed with the CJM's view on the matter and rejected the plea while imposing a penalty of ₹20,000 to discourage the petitioner (complainant) from engaging in such practices."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," the High Court ordered. .Advocate Upendra Kumar Pushkar represented the petitioner (complainant).Government Advocate Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi appeared for the State government. .[Read Order]