I.A. Ansari, J.

1. A question of great importance has been raised, in this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the question being whether a person, who is acquainted with the facts of a case, which is under investigation by police, has any right to get his or her statement recorded, under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, by a Magistrate by filing a petition, in the Court of a Magistrate, seeking to get himself examined as a witness under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure?

2. The question posed above has arisen in the backdrop of the facts as indicated below:

(i) The Petitioner, who claims to be an educated female person of the age of 21 years, has, according to the Petitioner, voluntarily married, on 2.9.2010, one Md. Iftikhar Hussain, according to Islamic law and, thereafter, on 21.9.2010, their marriage was also registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, at Mangaldoi, in the district of Darrang. The Petitioner claims that she, without giving any information to her parents, had gone out of her parental house, on 13.9.2010, to her husband's house for the purpose of leading conjugal life there and she has accordingly started living with her husband at Garigaon, Guwahati. However, the Petitioner came to learn that Baihata Chariali P.S. Case No. 128/2010 has been registered, under Section 366, IPC, against her husband on the basis of a First Information Report lodged by her brother, Khargeswar Deka, the informant's allegation being that on 13.10.2010, at about 10 a.m., while his sister, (i.e., the Petitioner), was going to Vidya Bharati College from her house at Singharpara, the accused, Md. Iftar Hussain, (i.e., the Petitioner's present husband) had forcibly taken her away from Singharpara Chowk.

(ii) During the course of investigation, the Petitioner, according to what the Petitioner contends, has been projected as a victim of abduction, though she had married the accused aforementioned voluntarily and she has been living with him on her own accord. The Petitioner, then, on 5.10.2010, filed a petition, in the court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rangia, seeking her statement to be recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate has rejected her prayer by order, passed, in this regard, on 5.10.2010, on the ground, inter alia, that she might have been sponsored by the accused so as to paint himself as an innocent person.

4. Aggrieved by the order aforementioned rejecting her prayer that her statement be recorded in terms of Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, the Petitioner has, now, impugned the same by way of this writ petition and has sought for a direction to be issued to the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mangaldoi, to record her statement as a witness, under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, in connection with the case aforementioned.

5. I have heard Mr. N.N. Karmakar, learned Counsel, for the Petitioner, and Mr. G. Soren, learned Government Advocate, for the Respondents.

6. Drawing attention of this Court to the provisions contained in Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly, Sub-section (4) thereof, Mr. Karmakar contends that a Magistrate is competent, under the law, to record statement of any person as a witness under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. and, in order to enable a Magistrate to record statement of a person as a witness, under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not necessary that the investigating agency must seek recording of statement of such a person under Section 164. In other words, what Mr. Karmakar contends is that a Magistrate is competent to record statement of any person, during the course of investigation, if such a person opts to get himself examined as a witness, under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that he (she) is acquainted with the facts of a case, which is under investigation. Such a prayer, according to Mr. Karmakar, ca