Parul Yadav vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 12298 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3284/2020

Parul Yadav D/o Sh. Prabhu Yadav, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bhojasar Tehsil Bhadra Dist. Hanumangarh.

                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State, Through PP
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. V.K. Bhadu
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

                                Judgment

06/08/2021

The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner

Parul Yadav seeking a direction to the SHO/Magistrate concerned

to re-record her statement under Section 164 CrPC.

Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of the

misc. petition are narrated hereinbelow:

The petitioner filed an FIR No.172 dated 25.07.2020 against

Deepaklal, Jaspreet and Inder at the Police Station Bhadra for the

offences under Sections 376, 342, 420 & 120-B of the IPC. During

the course of investigation, the statement of the petitioner was

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She has now approached this

Court by way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

alleging that when the first statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

was recorded, the complainant-petitioner was under pressure of

the threat by the accused and thus, she could not give a faithful

version of the offences which were committed upon her and that

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3284/2020]

the said statement does not set out a correct version of the

incident which took place with the petitioner-complainant. On

these grounds, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a

direction for fresh recording of her statement under Section 164

Cr.P.C. Shri V.K. Bhadu, learned counsel for the petitioner placed

reliance on the following judgments

1. Manju Devi vs State of Rajasthan reported in 2010 (1)

Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 541

2. Pradeep Kabra vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.

Criminal Misc. Petition No.4079/2019) decided on

02.09.2019

& urged that this Court would be acting well within its

jurisdiction while directing that the statement of the petitioner

should be re-recorded under Section 164 CrPC and that ends of

justice require that such a direction be issued.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions

advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on

record.

Suffice it to say that the orders/judgments which have been

cited by the petitioner' counsel are distinguishable on the peculiar

facts which were prevailing in those cases. It is relevant to

mention here that even in the application dated 04.09.2020 filed

by the petitioner to the SHO PS Bhadra for fresh recording of her

statement, all that she stated was that she was fraudulently

induced into marrying the accused and was sexually exploited.

She also stated in the application that after the case was lodged

by her, the accused came and threatened her that if she made a

complaint, she would be implicated in a false case at Punjab and

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3284/2020]

that when her first statement was recorded, she was terrified

because of the threats and hence, she could not give a truthful

version of the incident. The allegations so levelled by the

petitioner in the application are absolutely vague. She has not

stated as to who, from amongst the accused persons named in the

FIR, was responsible for giving her the so-called threats and when

were such treats given. If at all, such threats had been given by

the accused to the complainant, she could have filed an

application to the superior police officers. Be that as it may. It is

clear that the application filed by the petitioner for getting

recorded fresh statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is nothing but

a means to mould/alter the earlier statement given on oath before

the Magistrate concerned. Giving such a direction would clearly

amount to interfering in the due process of law. Needless to say

that the petitioner would have an opportunity of giving the version

of the incident which she claims to be correct when her statement

is recorded on oath at the trial. The facts prevailing in the two

judgments cited by the petitioner's counsel were totally

distinguishable. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the

matter while exercising inherent powers of this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the misc. petition fails and is

dismissed as being devoid of merit. The stay application is also

rejected.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J 16-Sudhir Asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)