The court declined to direct the re-recording of the petitioner's statement under Section 164 CrPC, holding that such a direction would interfere with the due process of law and that the petitioner would have the opportunity to give her version at the trial.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - 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.

2. Briefly stated facts relevant and essential for disposal of the misc. petition are narrated hereinbelow.

3. 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 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, (2010) CrLR 541(Raj)

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.

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

5. 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 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.