Serial No. 42 Reg Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 731/2023 CrlM(1670/2023). MASRAT MAQBOOL. …PETITIONER (s) Through: Mr. Waseem Shamas, Advocate. VERSUS UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION BARAMULLA. Through: Mr. Syed Musaib, Dy. AG. …RESPONDENT(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 21-02-2025 01. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashment of Order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge) Baramulla whereby her application seeking re- recording of her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC has been rejected. 02. It appears that a complaint was filed by the petitioner against one Shoaib Lone on the basis of which, FIR bearing No. 96/2024 for commission of offences under Sections 376, 342 and 506 IPC was registered with police of police station Baramulla. It seems that during the investigation of the case, statement of the petitioner, who happens to be prosecutrix in that case, was recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.PC. 03. In the present petition, the petitioner has submitted that while making her statement before the learned Magistrate, she had inadvertently omitted certain material facts which could not be recorded by the learned Magistrate. It is being claimed that the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer requesting him to get her statement re-recorded but he refused to do so. It has been further submitted that the petitioner approached the learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge) Baramulla with a similar prayer but her application has been dismissed by virtue of the impugned order. 04. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 05. It is a settled law that there is no legal or statutory bar to record a statement of a witness during the investigation of the case under Section 161 of the Cr.PC or under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, on more than one occasions. It is ultimately the prerogative of the Investigating Officer to decide as to whether there is a need of re-recording the statement of a prosecution witnesses. 06. The object behind undertaking the investigation is to unearth the true facts and not to somehow or other to file a challan against the suspect. The endeavor of the Investigating Officer should not only be to book the culprit but he/she has also to ascertain as to whether the offence has taken place at all. This exercise has to be undertaken by the Investigating Officer by evaluating and assessing the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation of the case as also the other material collected during the investigation. Whether or not the statement of a witness is to be relied upon is a question which has to be addressed by the Investigating Officer by evaluating the other circumstances and material collected during investigation. Merely because a witness supports the version of the complainant does not mean that Investigating Officer should close his eyes to the other material assembled during the investigation. Ultimately, it depends upon the assessment and discretion of the Investigating Officer and he has to take a call whether it is necessary to re-record the statement of a witness and whether the same would help in reaching the correct conclusion. 07. If we have a look at the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, a similar view has been taken by the Magistrate in the said order but while doing so the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application of the petitioner without passing a direction upon the Investigating Officer to take a call in the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case. By rejecting the application, the learned Magistrate has, virtually closed the option of the Investigating Officer to evaluate the circumstances which have prompted the prosecutrix to get her statement re-recorded. It is for the Investigating Officer to determine as to whether the prosecutrix is genuine in her request or whether it is a ploy to circumvent the process of reaching the truth, but the same can be done only after dispassionately hearing her. 08. In view of the above, the impugned Order dated 06.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate (Sub-Judge) Baramulla to the extent it has rejected the application of the petitioner is quashed and the Investigating Officer of the case is directed to consider the request of the petitioner for re-recording her statement in light of the attending circumstances and the material collected during the investigation of the case. If the Investigating Officer decides to get the statement of the prosecution witness re-recorded, her said statement shall be assessed and evaluated by the Investigating Officer in the light of her earlier statement as also the material that may have been collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation of the case, whereafter he/shall take a final call in the matter. 09. Disposed of. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 21-02-2025 Showkat Khan