Section 183 BNSS (164CrPC)  Cannot Be Converted Into A Tool For Endless Re-Statements:  Allahabad High Court

“Magisterial Statement Is Ordinarily Recorded Only Once” – In a significant pronouncement reinforcing the sanctity of magisterial statements, the Allahabad High Court held that Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 does not contemplate repeated or second statements as a matter of course.

The Division Bench of Hon’ble Rajiv Gupta, J. and Hon’ble Achal Sachdev, J. dismissed a writ petition seeking re-recording of a victim’s statement on alleged procedural lapses, ruling that such power can be exercised only in “exceptional circumstances where the integrity of the original statement is seriously compromised.”

The Court made it clear that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked routinely to direct fresh recording of statements under Section 183 BNSS.

The petitioner, Kirti Verma, appearing in person, is the complainant/victim in Case Crime No. 320 of 2024 registered under Sections 70(1), 352, 351(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, Azamgarh. Her statement had been recorded before the Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS.

Subsequently, she moved applications before the trial court alleging that her statement had not been correctly recorded and was not read over to her. The learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC Court No. 01, Azamgarh, by order dated 13.01.2026, observed that “the statement under section 183 B.N.S.S. is ordinarily recorded only once” and that any direction for recording such statement again could be issued only by the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a mandamus for re-recording of her statement strictly on procedural grounds.

“Section 183 BNSS Acts As A Judicial Filter Between Investigation And Trial”

The Bench undertook a detailed examination of Section 183 BNSS, which corresponds to the old Section 164 CrPC. The Court emphasized that the provision is designed to provide a “safe, voluntary and judicially supervised mechanism” for recording confessions and statements during investigation or before commencement of trial.

Elaborating on its constitutional significance, the Court noted that the safeguards embedded in Section 183 BNSS protect the rights guaranteed under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The Magistrate is required to ensure voluntariness, explain the consequences of making a statement, and ensure that it is read over and signed by the maker.

The Court observed that Section 183 BNSS “acts as a judicial filter between police investigation and trial evidence,” thereby safeguarding individuals against coercion while ensuring reliability of evidence.

Crucially, the Bench held that “the provision does not contemplate or authorize ‘second’ or repeated statements under this section as a standard procedure.” Unlike police statements under Section 180 BNSS, which may be recorded multiple times during investigation, a magisterial statement under Section 183 carries higher evidentiary value and is meant to be recorded with finality, subject to strict safeguards.

Extraordinary Jurisdiction Not A Substitute For Investigation

Addressing the scope of its powers under Articles 226 and 227 and Section 528 BNSS, the Court clarified that while High Courts possess authority to intervene to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice, such power is not routine or investigative in nature.

The Bench categorically held that the High Court “cannot directly order or direct the recording of the second or additional statement under Section 183 B.N.S.S. in the sense of compelling the Magistrate to record another statement from the same person as a routine or an investigative measure.”

It further observed that re-recording may be directed only in rare and exceptional cases where grave procedural irregularity, coercion, or serious infirmity is prima facie established. Mere allegation that the statement was not read over, without substantiating exceptional circumstances, would not justify interference.

Certified Copy Reveals Procedural Compliance

The petitioner produced a certified copy of her statement recorded under Section 183 BNSS. Upon perusal, the Court found that the statement had been recorded on the basis of her oral narration, was read over to her, and was signed by her. The Magistrate had also recorded that the statement was made without duress.

The Bench noted that “all the procedural aspects have been followed” and upheld the trial court’s observation that a second statement under Section 183 BNSS can be directed only in exceptional circumstances.

Finding no prima facie violation of the statutory safeguards, the Court concluded that no extraordinary ground existed to warrant re-recording.

By dismissing the writ petition, the Allahabad High Court has reinforced that Section 183 BNSS is not a mechanism for repeated statements at the instance of a dissatisfied party. The sanctity and finality of a magisterial statement, once recorded with due safeguards, cannot be lightly disturbed.

The ruling serves as an important precedent clarifying that re-recording of statements under Section 183 BNSS is an exception, not the rule, and that extraordinary constitutional powers must be exercised sparingly to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Date of Decision: 26/02/2026