Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.574 of 2026 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Tutu Debanath …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Balaram Nayak, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-31.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-15.05.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner has instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in G.R. Case No.1644 of 2025 arising out of Jamboo Marine P.S. Case No. 173 of 2025. The Petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the learned Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 2 S.D.J.M., Kendrapara to record the further statement of the minor victim under Section 183 of the BNSS. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) On 18th August, 2025, the present Petitioner lodged a written complaint before the IIC, Marine Jamboo Police Station, inter alia, stating therein that the FIR-named accused persons had forcibly kidnapped his minor daughter for the purpose of contracting marriage. Based on such information, P.S. Case No. 173 dated 18.08.2025 was registered for offences punishable under Section 137(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS against the five named accused persons. (ii) Upon recovery of the victim girl, her statement was recorded before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara under Section 183 of the BNSS. The victim could not disclose the truth, as she, being a rustic and bashful minor girl, was in the custody of the police and in the presence/influence of the accused persons from the time of her rescue till the recording of her statement. (iii) The minor victim was not allowed to meet her parents, which would have instilled confidence in her to narrate the injustice meted out to her. Considering the mounting pressure from police personnel and the accused persons and the intimidating environment in which she was placed, the statement recorded earlier does not depict the true sequence of events that unfolded on the unfortunate day of the incident. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 3 (iv) The petitioner moved an application before the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara seeking re-recording/further recording of the victim’s statement under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023. (v) The learned Magistrate, disregarding a long line of judicial decisions and relevant statutory provisions, rejected the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 08.01.2026, which is impugned herein. Moreover, no reasons have been assigned by the learned Magistrate for rejecting the said application, despite the same being necessary in the interest of justice. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The present case concerns the kidnapping of a teenage girl, who was left in the care of her grandparents by the petitioner to pursue her education at a village school. (ii) The petitioner resides in Bangalore with his wife to earn a livelihood and provide a better life for his children and elderly parents in the village. Taking advantage of his absence, the FIR- named accused not only enticed the victim away from lawful custody but also subjected her to sexual harassment. (iii) Pursuant to the written report lodged by the petitioner (Jamboo Marine P.S. Case No. 173 of 2025), the victim was rescued from the accused’s residence. Despite being taken to the Community Health Centre, Mahakalpara, the child was not medically Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 4 examined by the Investigating Officer. Repeated requests by the petitioner were disregarded, violating the statutory mandate regarding medical examination of sexual offence victims. (iv) Sections 2(d) and 27 of the POCSO Act, 2012, read with Section 164A of the CrPC, mandate that a child must be medically examined upon rescue, irrespective of whether an FIR under the Act has been registered. The state’s contention that FIR registration is a precondition for medical examination is therefore misplaced. (v) Section 24 of the Act requires that a child’s statement be recorded at her residence, usual place of stay, or place of her choice, by a woman police officer not below the rank of Sub- Inspector. Section 26 mandates that such statements be recorded in the presence of the child’s parents or any person in whom the child has trust or confidence. (vi) In this case, the child was taken to the police station, which lacked a woman Sub-Inspector and her statement was recorded in the absence of her parents or nearest relatives. Similarly, the learned S.D.J.M. recorded the child’s statement without ensuring her parents’ presence, contrary to the child-friendly procedures envisaged under the Act. (vii) Alarmingly, the FIR-named accused accompanied the victim from the place of recovery to the Sakhi Centre at Kendrapara on 22.08.2025 and were subsequently seen loitering near the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., even offering a marriage proposal to the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 5 child. The victim later informed her parents that she had been coached by police officials regarding her place of rescue and the role of the accused persons. (viii) In Bhima Mallik v. State of Orissa1, a similar issue arose before this Court regarding whether a Magistrate can record a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the instance of the informant. The Court answered this question in the affirmative and quashed the erroneous order of the learned Magistrate. (ix) The Court clarified that a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not restricted to being recorded only at the instance of the police. It may also be recorded at the request of the accused, the aggrieved person, or even the witness himself, thereby affirming the broader scope and purpose of the provision. (x) The question whether statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be recorded more than once, has been dealt with by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Showkat Ali v. State and Ors.2, wherein it has been held as follows: “The Code does not contemplate any bar against recording statement of a witness under Section 161 of the Code and correspondingly under Section 164-A more than once, Such a bar as a matter of fact cannot be imposed because cases may not be rare where necessity of recording such statement more than once arises and even contradictory statements are made. However, if statement 1 1994 SCC OnLine Ori 184 2 (561-A No.259/2014 decided on 04.09.2014) Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 6 is recorded more than once, the I.O. will have to arrive at a conclusion having regard to other evidence and material collected by him." (xi) A similar view has been taken by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Archana v. UT of J & K and Anr.3, wherein it has been held as follows: “5. From the afore-quoted enunciation of law on the subject, it is clear that there is no bar to recording statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr. P, C more than once.” (xii) It is no longer res integra that further investigation can be permitted even after filing of chargesheet of closer report as the case may be. That the general rule of criminal justice is that "a crime never dies". The principle is reflected in the well-known maxim nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi i.e. lapse of time is no bar to crown in proceeding against offenders. (xiii) Considering the procedural illegalities highlighted above, learned counsel prays to allow the CRLMC with a direction to the learned S.D.J.M, Kendrapara to record further statement of the child-victim, keeping in view the in light of the settled legal position. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: 3 Decided in CRM(M) No.206/2025 dated 17.03.2025 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 7 (i) Due to the odd hour on 22.08.2025, the victim was kept at the shelter home (One Stop Centre Sakhi, Icchapur) and produced before the Court on 23.08.2025. (ii) Therefore, there was no possibility of the victim being influenced or surrounded by the accused. (iii) As per the POCSO Act, the parents of the victim were not allowed to remain present during recording of her statement. (iv) However, the case was registered under Section 137(2)/3(5) of BNS, and during investigation, based on the victim’s statement, it was not converted into a POCSO case. (v) The victim’s statement was recorded on 23.08.2025, and on the same day, she was handed over to her father. (vi) After a gap of around three months, the father filed the present petition for recording her statement again. (vii) Due to this long delay, the possibility of tutoring the victim cannot be ruled out. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. Upon examining the records and circumstances, the learned trial Court held that there is a significant delay in filing the petition and the possibility of tutoring cannot be excluded. Accordingly, the learned trial Court rejected the petition filed by the Petitioner for further recording the statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 8 6. The power to record a statement under Section 183 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 164 Cr.P.C.) is not a ritualistic exercise confined within rigid procedural boundaries, but a judicial mechanism intended to preserve the voluntariness, authenticity and reliability of a witness’s version during investigation. The object of such provision is not merely evidentiary preservation, but to ensure that the statement reflects the free and uninfluenced account of the maker. Consequently, where circumstances are brought to the notice of the Court indicating that the earlier statement may not have been made in a congenial, voluntary or confidence-inspiring atmosphere, the Court cannot mechanically reject a prayer for further recording solely on the ground that one statement has already been recorded. 7. It is true that there exists no statutory embargo against recording a statement under Section 183 of the BNSS more than once. The judicial pronouncements relied upon by the Petitioner, including Bhima Mallik v. State of Orissa4, Showkat Ali v. State(supra) and Archana v. UT of J&K,(supra) correctly recognize that the provision does not prohibit subsequent recording of statements where circumstances so demand. Criminal procedure is ultimately a handmaid of justice, and not its mistress. Therefore, if the facts disclose a genuine apprehension that the earlier statement was not made in an atmosphere conducive to voluntariness, the Court possesses sufficient jurisdiction to direct 4 1994(II)OLR110 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 9 further recording of the statement in the interest of a fair investigation. 8. However, the existence of jurisdiction is one thing, and the justification for exercise of such jurisdiction is another. A second or subsequent statement under Section 183 of the BNSS cannot be permitted as a matter of course merely because one party expresses dissatisfaction with the earlier version. If such unrestricted liberty is conceded, the sanctity attached to judicially recorded statements would stand seriously diluted, and the process itself may become susceptible to manipulation, tutoring or repeated attempts to secure a favourable version. The Court is therefore required to strike a delicate balance between two competing concerns — the need to secure a truthful and voluntary account from the victim, and the equally important necessity of preserving the integrity and finality attached to statements recorded before a Magistrate. 9. In the present case, the principal ground urged by the Petitioner is that the victim, being a minor rustic girl, was under fear, pressure and influence when her earlier statement was recorded. Allegations have also been made regarding non-compliance with certain child-friendly procedures contemplated under the POCSO Act. At the same time, the records reveal that the victim was produced before the learned Magistrate on 23.08.2025 after being kept at the One Stop Centre (Sakhi Centre) and was thereafter handed over to her father on the very same day. The application seeking further recording of statement came to be filed after a considerable lapse of time. The delay assumes Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 10 significance because with the passage of time, the possibility of external influence, embellishment or tutoring equally becomes a relevant consideration which the Court cannot ignore while exercising inherent jurisdiction. 10. The contention of the Petitioner that procedural safeguards under the POCSO Act were not fully adhered to may at best constitute a circumstance requiring cautious appreciation of the earlier statement during trial, but such alleged irregularities, by themselves, do not automatically render the statement non est or mandate a direction for re-recording. A statement under Section 183 of the BNSS is not substantive evidence in itself; its evidentiary value is ultimately tested during trial through examination and cross-examination before the competent Court. Therefore, even assuming that certain procedural lapses occurred during investigation, the same would not necessarily justify reopening the process of judicial recording unless compelling circumstances are demonstrated showing that denial of such prayer would occasion failure of justice. 11. The learned trial Court, while rejecting the application, took into account the delay in approaching the Court and the attendant possibility of tutoring. These considerations cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant or extraneous. In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over every discretionary order passed by the Magistrate. Interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from patent perversity, manifest illegality or results in Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Signature Not Verified Page 11 miscarriage of justice. Merely because another view is possible would not justify invocation of inherent powers. 12. At the same time, this Court cannot remain oblivious to the overarching principle that the criminal justice system, particularly in matters involving minor victims, must remain sensitive to the possibility that fear, social pressure, intimidation or psychological vulnerability may inhibit free disclosure at the initial stage. The ultimate duty of the Court is to ensure discovery of truth while maintaining procedural fairness. Therefore, although this Court is not inclined to mechanically direct re-recording of the victim’s statement at this belated stage, it is clarified that the victim shall remain free to disclose the true facts during investigation, if legally permissible, or during trial before the competent Court, and the trial Court shall assess her testimony independently on its own merits without being influenced solely by the earlier statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS. V. CONCLUSION: 13. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara warranting interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. 14. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed. However, the observations made herein shall not prejudice the rights of the victim Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 26-May-2026 16:09:47 Page 12 during trial, nor preclude the competent Court from appreciating her evidence independently in accordance with law. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 15th May, 2026