MAYADEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 123.1993 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur dismissing the application moved u/s 164, Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 15/93 registered at Police Station Bhusawar Distt. Bharatpur.

(2.) Shri A.K. Gupta has submitted that the statements u/s 164, Cr.P.C. can be recorded by any Magistrate notwithstanding the area or the jurisdiction. Shri Gupta has submitted that yet the application filed by Maya Devi in relation to the FIR No. 15/93 for recording her statement u/s 164, Cr.P.C. has not been entertained by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur and the application dated 113.93 has been dismissed and that amounts to the refusal to exercise the jurisdiction which is properly vested in him. I have gone through the certified copy of the application filed on behalf of Maya Devi for recording her statement u/s 164, Cr.P.C. and the order which has been drawn on the back of it by the CJM, Sawai Madhopur. The Photostat certified copy of the order which has been produced before me, does not show the signatures of Maya Devi on this application, the order drawn by the CJM shows that the applicant Maya Devi was not present; however, I find that the application has not been rejected either for want of signatures or for the absence of Maya Devi but, by saying that it was necessary to peruse the case diary about the investigation and therefore, it will be proper that the statements are recorded in Distt. Bharatpur and, therefore, the application for recording the statement u/s 164, Cr.P.C. may be filed before the CJM, Bharatpur. I am of the opinion, that according to the provisions of Section 164, Cr.P.C. the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate could not refuse to exercise the jurisdiction which was vested in him by saying that it was necessary to peruse the case diary and, therefore, it is clear that the application of Maya Devi has been rejected for reasons which are not at- all germane. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is, directed that in case, any application signed by the petitioner is presented by her and if she is present before the Court as duly identified by the lawyer, the CJM, Sawai Madhopur would not refuse to record her statements u/s 164, Cr.P.C. on the ground that he has to peruse the case diary about the investigation, more particularly when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur has himself noted that this application had been filed before him for reasons of security.

(3.) This application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. succeeds, the order dated 123.1993 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur is quashed and set-aside.