Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Time Limit for Recording Section 164 Statements - No strict legal time limit exists for recording statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; the recording can be done more than once if justified by good reasons, and the Magistrate has discretion in this matter ["Nafeesa v. State of U. P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others - Allahabad"].
Multiple Recordings of Statements - Courts have recognized that statements under Section 164 can be recorded multiple times during investigation if there are valid reasons; however, recording a statement more than once without proper justification may be challenged and dismissed ["Manorama Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
No Fixed Timeframe for Recording - There is no statutory time limit specified in the law for recording a Section 164 statement after FIR registration; the process depends on the circumstances of each case and the discretion of the Magistrate ["Nafeesa v. State of U. P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others - Allahabad"].
Judicial Discretion and Good Reasons - Magistrates have the authority to record or refuse to record subsequent statements under Section 164 based on the presence of valid reasons, and courts have emphasized the importance of voluntary and genuine statements ["Nafeesa v. State of U. P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others - Allahabad"].
Implication of Multiple Recordings - Recording a statement more than once can be permissible to clarify facts or for corroboration, but unnecessary repetitions without proper justification may be viewed negatively by courts ["Manorama Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
Analysis and Conclusion:There is no specific time limit prescribed in law for recording statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Once an FIR is registered, the police or Magistrate may record the statement at any appropriate stage of the investigation, provided there are valid reasons. The law permits multiple recordings if justified, but courts scrutinize such recordings to ensure they are voluntary and genuine. The discretion primarily lies with the Magistrate, and the absence of a statutory deadline means the process is flexible and case-dependent ["Nafeesa v. State of U. P. Thru. Secy. Home Lucknow and Others - Allahabad"], ["Manorama Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"].
In criminal investigations in India, the recording of statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) plays a crucial role in preserving witness testimony. But a common question arises: Is there any time limit to record 164 statements from registering FIR? If you're a lawyer, investigator, or someone navigating a criminal case, understanding this can impact the strength of evidence.
This article breaks down the legal position, drawing from statutory provisions and judicial precedents. Note: This is general information based on legal interpretations and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
First Information Report (FIR) is the initial document registering a cognizable offense under Section 154 CrPC. It kickstarts the police investigation. Section 164 empowers magistrates to record statements and confessions, which carry significant evidentiary weight as they are voluntary and taken under oath-like conditions.
The provision focuses on procedure and voluntariness, not rigid timelines. As per judicial analysis, There is no explicit statutory time limit prescribed... for recording statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. from the date of FIR registration Kunjukutty VS State Of Kerala - 1986 0 Supreme(Ker) 243.
The CrPC does not impose a fixed deadline for recording Section 164 statements post-FIR. Section 164 itself outlines how statements should be recorded—ensuring they are voluntary, in writing, and signed—but skips any mention of a timeframe from FIR registration.
This absence is echoed in case law: A witness cannot, on his own motion, approach a Magistrate for recording a statement under Section 164, and discusses the absence of a statutory time limit Jogendra Nahak VS State Of Orissa - 1999 6 Supreme 379. Courts evaluate timing based on case facts rather than a universal clock.
From additional sources, practices vary: In one instance, After registering the FIR, Investigating Officer shall take recourse as specified... But the police did not enquire into the matter, and the FIR... was lodged on 23-7-2017 after recording the merg statements of the witnesses The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Divisional Manager City Trade Center Near Bus Stand Chourasiya Bilding vs Mus Anita Tiwari - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10332, showing flexibility in sequencing.
While no hard deadline exists, courts stress prompt recording to safeguard evidence integrity. Delays can invite scrutiny on spontaneity and reliability.
Key judicial insights:- Delay in lodging the F.I.R., more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought Suresh Babu, S/o. Kalassery Vasu VS State of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 891. This principle extends to Section 164 statements.- In cases with a delay of nine days... it is the duty of the prosecution to explain the delay in registering the crime Suresh Babu, S/o. Kalassery Vasu VS State of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 891.
Promptness preserves the authenticity and spontaneity of the statement, as noted in precedents Kunjukutty VS State Of Kerala - 1986 0 Supreme(Ker) 243. Another ruling clarifies: The discretion to record statements under S. 164, Cr. P. C. is a matter of duty and discretion, and should only be interfered with if it affects the fair trial or inquiry DHANESWAR MALLIK VS STATE OF ORISSA - 1991 Supreme(Ori) 74.
Courts rigorously examine unexplained delays:- Suspicion of Embellishment: Without justification, delays may suggest afterthoughts, potentially affecting the weight of the evidence Suresh Babu, S/o. Kalassery Vasu VS State of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 891.- Case Example: Where the FIR was lodged promptly, the court accepted the explanation for any delay and held that the FIR was registered without undue delay Paulmeli VS State of Tamil Nadu Tr. Insp. of Police - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 441.
Supporting this, one judgment highlights inconsistencies: Delay in recording statements and registering the FIR... Case has not been properly investigated - It raises too many questions that have not been answered Firoz Khan VS State (Nct of Delhi) - 2014 Supreme(Del) 2512. Another notes: The fardbayan is Exhibit-3. He states he sent the fardboyan for registering FIR immediately but... neither from the case diary nor from the FIR so registered any time of registering is available State of Bihar VS Ajay Singh - 2012 Supreme(Pat) 592.
In witness turnovers, There is no dispute that they failed to support the statements made, in the FIR as well as the statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Bimal Das VS State of Tripura - 2011 Supreme(Gau) 881, underscoring how timing ties into overall credibility.
Investigating officers (IOs) and magistrates should prioritize early recording:- Best Practice: Record as soon as practicable post-FIR to avoid credibility challenges.- Explanation Required: Any delay needs a satisfactory explanation in court Suresh Babu, S/o. Kalassery Vasu VS State of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 891.
In complex cases, flexibility applies. For instance, during the course of further investigation, the statements of complainant and both the independent witnesses were recorded U/S 164-A Cr.P.C. Shamas Din VS State & Ors. - 2012 Supreme(J&K) 571, showing statements can occur mid-investigation.
Courts allow leeway in certain scenarios:- Ongoing Investigations: Leniency if the case is complex or investigation continues SNIGDHA KUMAR D/O SUDESH KUMAR VS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID, ALAPPUZHA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 18.- Post-Final Report: After the filing of the final report, a petitioner is entitled to access their statement recorded under Section 164 SNIGDHA KUMAR D/O SUDESH KUMAR VS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID, ALAPPUZHA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 18.- Child Cases: In POCSO matters, statements were recorded after complaint registration without timeline issues: After registering the complaint, some of the children were produced before the Judicial Magistrate to record their statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. A. Anthony @ Anthonysamy VS Inspector of Police, Mangalamedu Police Station - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 3491.
Refusals to record are discretionary: The refusal to record a statement should only be interfered with if it affects the fair trial DHANESWAR MALLIK VS STATE OF ORISSA - 1991 Supreme(Ori) 74. Witnesses can't demand it unilaterally: there is no good reason to limit... of all and sundry who may knock at the door of the court with a request to record their statements... under Section 164 Prashant Kumar Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand.
To maximize evidentiary value:- IOs and Magistrates: Record statements promptly; document reasons for any delay.- Prosecution: Always explain timelines to counter defense arguments.- Defense/Accused: Challenge unexplained delays to question reliability.- Accessing Statements: Seek post-final report when relevant SNIGDHA KUMAR D/O SUDESH KUMAR VS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID, ALAPPUZHA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 18.
Magistrates must apply mind before related orders, as in Section 156(3) applications Chetram Bakode VS Harishchandra - 2018 Supreme(MP) 949.
In summary, no statutory time limit exists for recording Section 164 statements after FIR registration. However, judicial principles demand promptness to uphold evidence reliability, with delays assessed case-by-case. Unexplained postponements can undermine prosecutions, as courts prioritize spontaneity over strict rules.
Key Takeaways:- No fixed deadline under CrPC.- Prompt recording enhances credibility.- Explain delays adequately.- Flexibility in complex or post-report scenarios.
Stay informed on evolving case law, and always seek professional legal counsel for case-specific guidance. This ensures investigations remain robust and justice is served effectively.
References:-Kunjukutty VS State Of Kerala - 1986 0 Supreme(Ker) 243Jogendra Nahak VS State Of Orissa - 1999 6 Supreme 379SNIGDHA KUMAR D/O SUDESH KUMAR VS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID, ALAPPUZHA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 18Suresh Babu, S/o. Kalassery Vasu VS State of Kerala, Represented By The Public Prosecutor - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 891Paulmeli VS State of Tamil Nadu Tr. Insp. of Police - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 441DHANESWAR MALLIK VS STATE OF ORISSA - 1991 Supreme(Ori) 74The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Divisional Manager City Trade Center Near Bus Stand Chourasiya Bilding vs Mus Anita Tiwari - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MP) 10332Prashant Kumar Singh vs The State Of JharkhandShamas Din VS State & Ors. - 2012 Supreme(J&K) 571Firoz Khan VS State (Nct of Delhi) - 2014 Supreme(Del) 2512State of Bihar VS Ajay Singh - 2012 Supreme(Pat) 592Bimal Das VS State of Tripura - 2011 Supreme(Gau) 881A. Anthony @ Anthonysamy VS Inspector of Police, Mangalamedu Police Station - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 3491Chetram Bakode VS Harishchandra - 2018 Supreme(MP) 949
#Section164CrPC, #FIRTimeLimit, #CriminalLaw
their statements under S.164 of the Code. ... If a Magistrate has power to record statement of any person under S.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. ... The petitioner moved application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate - I, Sitapur for recording her statement a second time under S.164 CrPC, which has not been allowed. Appropriate directions be issue....
On both the occasions, statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded by different judicial officers. Every time the victim threw similar allegations against the judicial officers, saying that they did not write what was actually told by her. ... During the course of investigation, the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 29.04.2023. Thereafter, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded for the second time on 11.05.2023. ... There is nothing in l....
limit, as prescribed therein. ... iii) After registering the FIR, Investigating Officer shall take recourse as specified in the M.V. ... But the police did not enquire into the matter, and the FIR, Ex.-P/2 was lodged on 23-7-2017 after recording the merg statements of the witnesses. ... The IAR and DAR shall be filed before the Claims Tribunal within the time limit subject to compliance of the time to all the police stations/stakeholders.
The complaint was sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registering the FIR. Consequently, Katras P.S. ... of all and sundry who may knock at the door of the court with a request to record their statements person under Section 164 of the Code, even without the investigating officer moving for it, then there is no good reason to limit
In reply to ground (iv) it is submitted that Trap Laying Officer (TLO) received the complaint and after perusal of same and examination of complaint of Shri Sher Singh forwarded the same to SP(SK) VOJ (through fax) who after registering the case FIR No.16/2010 ? ... ... “That during the course of further investigation, the statements of complainant and both the independent witnesses were recorded U/S 164-A Cr.P.C. ... During investigation, statements of complainant and two independent witnesses were re....
purpose for which he has been brought, and what he must disclose in his statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. ... As the defence had no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., such statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence. ... Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used only for the purpose of contradiction and statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used for both corrobo....
Further, she in her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. has repeated her version as mentioned in the FIR. ... Before the learned Court below she has been examined as PW-1 and in her statements, the prosecutrix has admitted that she had lodged the FIR as well as admitted her signatures on the FIR. ... Thereafter, the statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Ex.P/8 by the JMFC on 10.09.2020. Thereafter, the learned....
Registering it as First Information Report, police conducted investigation. In course of investigation, petitioners were examined and their statements were recorded under S. 161, Cr. P. C. From these statements, it is revealed that petitioners were witnesses to occurrence. ... At the time of appreciation of evidence, Court can consider whether Investigating Officer has wrongly recorded something which was not stated by petitioners. Refusal to record statements under S....
With regard to the interpolation of time in the FIR Mr. ... He argued that with regard to the interpolation of time in the FIR the victim never report either before the High Court and the first time while filing the protest petition the issue with regard to the interpolation in the FIR was raised though no supporting document was filed, however the supporting ... He submits that during the entire proceeding of WPCRL No. 1047 of 2013 the victim never came forward with a request to #HL_S....
/2012 by recording an FIR dated the petitioners who is record nor the petitioners being office objections for the third time, neither the counsel for nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be agency as provided under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. for recording the statements
After registering the complaint, some of the children were produced before the Judicial Magistrate to record their statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The official witnesses, that is, PW-1, who is the defacto complainant in this case as well as the Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee and PW-2, PW-7 and PW-8, who are the members of the Child Welfare Committee and they have clearly deposed that they have received the information/ complaint stating that some of the students, who were subjected to sexual harassment by the warden/Appellant/A1.
8. As regard to the objections raised by the learned counsels of the applicants that before sending complaint under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code for registration of FIR learned Magistrate is bound to record the statements of accused persons also and in the cases where complaint was filed for the offences which are triable by Court of sessions; before sending complaint for registering of FIR magistrate is bound to record the statements of complainant and his witnesses under section 200 and 202 of Criminal Procedure Code. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure C....
Delay in recording statements and registering the FIR The Court has heard the submissions of Ms. Arundhati Katju, Mr. Vikas Padora and Mr. D.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Rajat Katyal, learned APP for the State.
The fardbayan is Exhibit- 3. He states he sent the fardboyan for registering FIR immediately but we find that neither from the case diary nor from the FIR so registered any time of registering is available.
There is no dispute that they failed to support the statements made, in the FIR as well as the statements made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 2 to 5, who made statements, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., involving the accused person, namely Sri Bhanu Das, with the murder of the deceased, did not support their said statements at the time of giving evidence as PW.6, PW.7, PW.8 and PW.16, in the sessions trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
