MEENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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: