IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. W.J.C. No.682 of 2010 Nawal Kumar Singh, son of Sri Sheo Dhyan Singh, resident of Sandhya bhawan, Rajiv Nagar, Road No.14, Police Station Rajiv Nagar, District-Patna. ---Petitioner Versus 1. The Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi through Director. 2. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Dr.S.K. Singh Path, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Inspector-Cum-Investigating Officer, Central Bureau of Investigation, Dr.S.K. Singh Path, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar, Patna. ---Respondents ----------- 6. 12.7.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the manner in which the statement of the petitioner is recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as `the Code’). It is submitted that while recording the statement under section 161 of the Code, the Investigating Officer is virtually coercing the petitioner to give the statement in the manner in which the Investigating Officer wants. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is required to give true statement of the facts, which is within his knowledge with respect to the alleged commission of the offence. Not only this, the statement of the petitioner has already been recorded, even though he is being noticed to come again for giving his statement, which is virtually tantamounts to interfering with his personal/private peaceful life and, therefore, there is no valid justification for issuing notice to the petitioner for giving his - 2 - statement again under section 161 of the Code. It is further submitted that the manner in which the petitioner is being treated while recording his statement it is not made clear as to whether he is treated as a witness. Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the C.B.I. submits that the submission of the petitioner to the effect that his statement is not being truly recorded or sought to be recorded by compelling the petitioner is absolutely incorrect. The petitioner although has given his statement, but it is submitted that the statement under section 161 of the Code was recorded previously, however, in case of necessity during the course of investigation, the petitioner can be noticed to clarify/unravel the truth of the matter. It is within the right of the Investigating officer to call a person second time as well. Other allegation of the petitioner that his personal/private peaceful life is being interfered with is baseless. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it goes without saying that the police while recording the statement under section 161 of the Code have to record the true statement given by a person under section 161 and a person cannot be compelled to give a statement under coercion or compulsion. The grievance of the petitioner that since he has already given statement under section 161 of the Code, he cannot be called again, in my opinion, the same cannot be sustained in law for the simple reason that the very object of the investigation is to unravel the truth of the allegations and in course of investigation, there is no - 3 - prohibition that further statement cannot be recorded, if the occasion so arises. Notwithstanding the above, if the petitioner has any valid grievance against the investigating officer, it will be open for him to bring it to the notice of the higher police official by giving written cogent information/materials, which, if made, shall be considered in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)