The Allahabad High Court recently levied a penalty of ₹20,000 on a litigant for making repetitive requests to provide fresh statements in accordance with Section 164 of the  Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The court noted that although there is no explicit prohibition against submitting applications to record new statements under Section 164, such requests should not be made without a valid reason. Justice Jyotsna Sharma also emphasized that making repeated requests for such statements could erode their credibility and importance.

The court clarified that under specific circumstances, it is permissible to record statements under Section 164 of the CrPC more than once. However, this does not imply that the victim or the Investigating Officer (I.O.) can continuously submit requests for recording statements without a valid justification. The court emphasized that doing so would undermine the credibility of such statements and undermine their intended purpose.

The court further explained that a statement may be re-recorded in situations where new information emerges or to provide additional details regarding a previous statement. Nevertheless, the court stressed that the repeated recording of statements should not become a standard procedure and should be reserved for exceptional cases.

The court expressed its belief that if the Investigating Officer (I.O.) or the victim are allowed unrestricted discretion and their actions are not regulated, it could lead to a chaotic and disorganized investigation. Such an approach could have significant and wide-ranging consequences. The legal system must adhere to a careful and sensible course of action. Any effort to undermine or discredit the legal system should be prevented, the court emphasized.

Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) pertains to the process of recording confessions and statements made by individuals involved in a criminal trial. This includes statements and confessions from various parties, such as the complainant, the victim, witnesses, and the accused.

In the current case, a woman who is both the complainant and the alleged victim has claimed to have been a victim of molestation and various forms of abuse, including mental, physical, and economic exploitation. It was her third attempt to have her statement recorded. As part of the investigation, the complainant's statement had already been recorded twice on separate occasions by two different magistrates.

Approximately 11 days after the second statement was recorded, the complainant made a request to have her previous statements accurately re-recorded. Additionally, she requested that the recording be done via video. The Investigating Officer (IO) also submitted a similar application, seeking to record her statement for the third time. However, this request was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Agra.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) took into account the fact that different judicial officers had previously recorded the complainant's statements. Based on this, the magistrate was not persuaded by the complainant's claim that the judicial officers had inaccurately recorded her statements.

Subsequently, the complainant filed a plea with the High Court, seeking to have her statement re-recorded for the third time. However, the High Court concurred with the Chief Judicial Magistrate's perspective on the issue and rejected the plea. In addition, the High Court imposed a penalty of ₹20,000 on the complainant as a deterrent to discourage her from pursuing such repeated practices.

Case: Smt. Manorama Singh Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Ors, MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6848 of 2023.