Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Upendra Kumar Pushkar
For the Respondent: Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi

Key Points: - The court held there were no good reasons to record the victim's statement for a third time and dismissed the petition, imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioner. (!) - The judgment emphasizes the need for checks and balances and discourages the practice of recording multiple restatements under section 164 Cr.P.C. to prevent destruction of the sanctity of such statements. (!) (!) - While it is permissible for restatements to be recorded more than once in certain circumstances, routine or gratuitous repetition without good cause undermines the investigation and the integrity of the process. (!) - Previous orders (e.g., 16.05.2023 by CJM Agra) had rejected IO's third attempt to record the statement, noting two prior 164 Cr.P.C. recordings and questioning the need for a third. (!) (!) - The petition was filed under Article 227 challenging the rejection of the restatement recording; the court dismissed the habeas corpus petition accordingly. (!) (!) - The victim was given opportunity to present her side at trial; the misapplication of 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to bypass trial procedures. (!)

What is the legality of recording a victim's restatement under section 164 Cr.P.C. for a third time before videography?

What are the consequences of repeatedly seeking recording of statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. without good cause?

What are the court's directions regarding costs and discouraging misuse of the restatement process under Cr.P.C.?