RESHMA KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision application has been directed against the order dated 28.8.2014, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in Dugda P.S. Case No.22 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. No. 556 of 2014, whereby and where under the prayer for recording the statement of the informant under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it would be evident that the occurrence took place on 15.5.2014, where after fardbeyan was recorded on 16.5.2014 by D. Pandey, S.I of Chandrapura Police Station, at D.V.C. Hospital, Chandrapura. On the said fardbeyan L.T.I of the informant was taken. That the petitioner is the informant of the said case and she denied that the occurrence had taken place as narrated in fardbeyan. That she had repeatedly told the Police that she had met with an accident while she was cooking on the stove. That there is no medical evidence on record to show that she was subjected to assault or sexual assault. That when she came to know that the police after taking her L.T.I. has falsely implicated a person against whom she has no grievance then she visited the police station and even wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Bokaro denying the involvement of th said person. The police did not record her statement or version correctly where after she approached the court below, for recording her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C, but the court below without appreciating the facts of the case and the provision of Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. has rejected the application for recording her statement under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. Learned counsel cited the decision in the case of Ram Khelawan Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 1990 (2) PLJR 269 and urged that in the said case it has been held that informant's prayer for recording the statement must be allowed even in a case where the investigation is going on. On the above grounds it is contended that the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. stipulates that any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, can record the statement and there is no bar under the Sec. for recording the statement under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. of the informant.