Very Important point
A witness cannot, on his own motion, straightway go to a Magistrate and require him to record a statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which he proposes to make; and a Magistrate has no power to record statement of any such person u/s 164 of Cr.P.C at instance of a witness.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 164-Recording of Statement by Magistrate-A witness cannot, on his own motion, approach a Magistrate with a request that his statement may be recorded under Section 164-Magistrate has no power to record statement of such a stranger u/s 164.
       Held : There can be no doubt that a confession of the accused can be recorded by a magistrate. An accused is a definite person against whom there would be an accusation and the magistrate can ascertain whether he is in fact an accused person. Such a confession can be used against the maker thereof. If it is a confessional statement, the prosecution has to rely on it against the accused. But that cannot be said of a person who is not an accused. No such person can straightway go to a magistrate and require him to record a statement which he proposes to make. (Para 11)
       In the scheme of Provisions under Chapter XII of the Code there is no set or stage at which a magistrate can take note of a stranger individual approaching him directly with a prayer that this statement may be recorded in connection with some occurrence involving a criminal offence. If a magistrate is obliged to record the statements of all such persons who approach him the situation would become anomalous and every magistrate court will be further crowded with a number of such intending witness brought up at the behest of accused persons. (Para 18)
       If a magistrate has power to record statement of any person under Section 164 of the Code, even without the investigating officer moving for it, then there is no good reason to limit the power to exceptional cases. We are unable to draw up a dividing line between witnesses whose statements are liable to be recorded by the magistrate on being approached for the purpose and those not be recorded. The contention that there may be instances when the investigating officer would be disinclined to record statements of willing witnesses and therefore such witnesses must have a remedy to have their version regarding a case put on record, is no answer to the question whether any intending witness can straightaway approach a magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164 of the Code. Even for such witnesses provisions are available in law, e.g. the accused can cite them as defence witnesses during trial or the court can be requested to summon them under Section 311 of the Code. When such remedies are available to witnesses (who may be sidelined by the investigating officers) we do not find any special reason why the magistrate should be burdened with the additional task of recording the statements of all and sundry who may knock at the door of the court with a request to record their statements under Section 164 of the Code. (Para 20)
       On the other hand, if door is opened to such persons to get in and if the magistrates are put under the obligation to record their statements, then too many persons sponsored by culprits might throng before the portals of the magistrate courts for the purpose of creating record in advance for the purpose of helping the culprits. Thus, on a consideration of various aspects, we are disinclined to interpret Section 164(1) of the Code as empowering a magistrate to record the statement of a person unsponsored by the investigating agency.
        (Paras 21 & 22)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

A witness cannot, on their own initiative, approach a magistrate to request the recording of their statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, nor does a magistrate have the authority to record such a statement at the instance of a stranger (!) (!) .
The power to record a statement under Section 164 is primarily reserved for situations involving accused persons, and only when such statements are made in connection with an investigation or inquiry initiated by the police or court proceedings (!) (!) .
There is no obligation or specific stage in the criminal procedure at which a magistrate must record statements of individuals who approach them independently, without prior direction from the police or prosecution (!) (!) .
If magistrates were required to record the statements of all individuals who seek to have their statements recorded, it could lead to overcrowding of courts and misuse, including potential manipulation by culprits through sponsored witnesses (!) (!) .
The law does not empower magistrates to record statements of persons unsponsored by the investigating agency, and such attempts are generally deemed improper and outside the scope of judicial authority under Section 164 (!) (!) .
Remedies available to witnesses, such as summoning them during trial or including them as defense witnesses, are sufficient, and there is no need for magistrates to record statements of all potential witnesses who approach them directly (!) .
The discretion to record statements under Section 164 rests with the magistrate, but this discretion is limited and should not be exercised to include individuals who are not part of the investigation or prosecution process (!) (!) .
The court has rightly disallowed the recording of statements of individuals who approached the magistrate independently, emphasizing that such recordings are not part of the investigative process and should not be used as evidence unless presented during trial (!) (!) .
The costs imposed by the court for filing frivolous petitions are within its discretion, and such decisions are not subject to interference (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or clarification on any specific aspect.

Judgment

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. A strange motion has been made before the High Court of Orissa by four persons who are strangers to a criminal case for direction to a magistrate to record their statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’). The High Court which initially issued such a direction later resiled therefrom and revoked the order on a second thought and mulcted the aforesaid four persons with compensatory costs. They filed this appeal by special leave.

3. The backdrop of the above order can be summarised thus : In an incident which happened on 12-8-1997 at Janumi Village (Ganjam District, Orissa) one Balaram Mohanty and his son sustained injuries and later the said Mohanty succumbed to the injuries. F.I.R. was registered with Purusottampur Police Station on the information supplied by Bhagaban Mohanty, brother of the deceased. One Jagadish Murty and three others were arrayed as accused in the F.I.R. and investigation was commenced thereon. On completion of the investigation final report was laid by the police before the magistrate against the said accused persons. According to the present four appellants, though they were interrogated by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code their statements were not kept in the Case Diary.

4. The four appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court for directing the Investigating Officer to record their statements under Section 161 of the Code and for a further direction to the magistrate concerned to record their statements under Section 164 of the Code. The High Court permitted the appellants, as per its order dated 22-12-1997, to file a petition before the magistrate for the purpose of recording their statements and the magistrate was directed to pass appropriate orders on such petition. Pursuant to the said order appellants went to the magistrate’s court and filed a petition. However, the magistrate declined to record the statements. Appellants again moved the High Court and the following direction was issued by a Division Bench on 24-3-1998 :

“We direct the trial court to comply with our order dated 22-12-1997 by recording the statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C.”

5. It appears that the magistrate, pursuant to the aforesaid direction, recorded the statements of the appellants. Therefore, Bhagaban Mohanty (the informant) filed an application before the High Court to recall the order dated 24-3-1998. The Division Bench which passed the said order heard both side and delivered the impugned order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants and also ordering each of them to pay a cost of Rs. 2,500/- “for filing frivolous and vexatious petition.”

6. The Division Bench held that appellants have “miserably failed to prove any mala fide action of the Investigating Officer so as not to investigate the case properly or to screen any offender”. Learned Judges concluded thus :

“Therefore, the enxiety of the petitioners to examine themselves, is not with a view to help the investigating agency or the prosecution but to favour a person who has been charge-sheeted as an accused. Under such circumstances, the writ application is devoid of merit. It thus appears that petitioners did not file the writ application for securing fair justice but to play tricks so as to get their statements under Section 161 and/or 164 of the Code recorded to help a charge-sheeted accused.”

7. The argument addressed is that if the magistrate has power to record a statement under Section 164 of the Code at the instance of a witness, this is not the stage to consider whether witness has approached the magistrate with bona fides or not as that aspect should have been left to the trial court to decide while considering the reliability of his testimony. At present we may decide the question whether a witness can, on his own motion, approach a magistrate with a request that his statement may be recorded under Section 164 of the Code.

8. Learn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 808

Very Important point A witness cannot, on his own motion, straightway go to a Magistrate and require him to record a statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which he proposes to make; and a Magistrate has no power to record statement of any such person u/s 164 of Cr.P.C at instance of a witness.

Very Important point
A witness cannot, on his own motion, straightway go to a Magistrate and require him to record a statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. which he proposes to make; and a Magistrate has no power to record statement of any such person u/s 164 of Cr.P.C at instance of a witness.