Allahabad HC Deprecates Practice Of Accused Annexing Statement Of Victim U/s 164 CrPC To Plea For Quashing FIR
The Allahabad High Court has strongly deprecated the practice of the accused annexing the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. along with the plea challenging the FIR.
The Court ordered Magistrates/Courts not to issue certified copies of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 183 of the BNSS) to any person till cognizance is taken on the chargesheet/police report.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed, “This Court also strictly deprecates this practice of annexing the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by the accused-petitioners and further is of the view that concerned Magistrates/courts should not issue certified copies of the statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. as deprecated by the Hon'ble Apex Court to any person till cognizance is taken on the chargesheet/police report.”
Advocate Arvind Kumar appeared for the petitioner, while AGA Ghanshyam Kumar represented the respondent.
The petition was preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned FIR registered under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR.
As per the statement of the victim/petitioner recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the victim had not supported the prosecution’s version and had categorically stated that she left her home willingly to get married and that there was a consensual physical relationship.
The Court noted that no offence under Section 366 of the IPC was made out in the case since the petitioner was major and had left her home willingly.
After quashing the FIR, the Court noted that petitioners had annexed the copy of the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as well as the copy of the ossification test report.
The Court referred to the Apex Court’s decision in State of Karnataka v. Shivam (2014), wherein the court observed that an accused or any other person had no right to receive a copy of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. until cognizance is taken by the concerned court/Magistrate on chargesheet/police report filed under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.
In light of the same, the Court observed, “This Court has noticed that in a number of cases, the statements recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. are being filed by the accused/petitioners before this Court while challenging FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar General of the Court to send a copy of the order to the Chief Justice so that a circular may be issued to the District Courts of the State of U.P.
“Investigating Officers shall not supply copy of the statements recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (now section 183 BNSS) to any person during investigation,” the Court further directed.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Smt Ujala & Anr. v. State Of UP & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:135820-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Arvind Kumar and Vidya Sagar Rajbhar
Respondents: AGA Ghanshyam Kumar