Mst. Mai Pathani vs SHO P.S Patni Sukkur & others
This criminal miscellaneous application challenges the order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sukkur, whereby the applicant's application seeking permission to record her second statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was dismissed due to the absence of exceptional circumstances. The core legal question is whether a witness or complainant is entitled to record a second statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without demonstrating exceptional circumstances. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order contained valid and cogent reasons and suffered from no illegality or infirmity warranting constitutional or discretionary interference. The court dismissed the application, affirming the principle that recording a successive statement requires exceptional justification.
- Can a party record a second statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without exceptional circumstances?
- Whether the High Court will interfere with an order refusing to record a second section 164 statement when valid reasons are assigned?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Statements filed by respondents No.1 to 3 are taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of impugned order dated 30.01.2025, it appears that learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sukkur has dismissed the application filed by applicant seeking permission to record her second statement under section 164 CrPC for the reasons that there is no exceptional circumstance to justify for doing so.
2. From perusal of impugned order, it appears that learned Additional Sessions Judge has assigned valid and cogent reasons while passing the impugned order and no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned order requiring interference of this Court. Accordingly, instant Crl. Misc. Application is dismissed