JUDGMENT 1. - In this revision petition an order passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal rejecting an application under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 moved by the petitioner who voluntaring to get herself examined by the Court. 2. The facts as emerged from the Order under Revision itself are that a First Information Report was lodged at Police Station - Ahore alleging that one Dilip K. Vasu had seduced and abducted Ms. Valasamma. It was further alleged that with the help of Indra Kaur Vyas, Devki and Krishna Acharya etc. the said Dilip K. Vasu forcibly married Ms. Savitri. It was further alleged that Dilip K. Vasu had earlier married Ms. Valasamma - the petitioner herein and had two issues from her. It was also alleged that Dilip K. Vasu seduced and married Ms. Savitri, the complainant during the subsistence of his earlier marriage to Ms. Valasamma. 3. Petitioner Ms. Valasamma filed an application under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal offering to make a statement and alleging that the Police were pressurising her by giving statements that she had admitted her marriage with Dilip K. Vasu. It was also stated in the application that she had not married any time with Dilip K. Vasu and had no relations with him and because of the statements given by the Police, she was being defamed and to save herself from further defamation wanted to make statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 4. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application observing that recording of statements of the petitioner could adversely affect the investigation in a case involving serious offences like abduction, rape, bigamy etc. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate also observed that it is likely that petitioner Valasamma was trying to save the accused Dilip K. Vasu by making statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application stating that allowing the statement would certainly dilute the seriousness of the investigation and if the Court started recording statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation, the investigation in serious offences like abduction, rape, bigamy etc. would be adversely affected. 5. It appears that the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application stating that allowing the statement would certainly dilute the seriousness of the investigation and if the Court started recording statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. during investigation, the investigation in serious offences like abduction, rape, bigamy etc. would be adversely affected. 5. It appears that the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeded on the assumption that the petitioner was going to give false statements before him in order to help accused - Dilip K. Vasu. There is nothing on record to warrant any such inference or presumption being drawn. If a witness comes to the Court and alleges that the Police are not fair in the investigation of the case and are alleging something to have been said by the witness which he or she had not infact stated, the only course which remains open to the witness to save himself from the ignominy of being declared hostile later on during the trial is to approach that Court for recording of statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 6. It cannot be presumed that investigations are always fair and the Police record the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. faithfully and correctly. The common experience is that several witnesses deny in the Court their statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and many of them even state in the Court on oath that they had not given any statements to the Police. In such circumstances, when a witness comes to the Court alleging that investigations are being carried out unfairly, there is nothing to discredit such witness to the extent of rejecting his application under Section 164 Cr.P.C. presuming that he is going to make a false statement before the Court. 7. In a Single Bench decision of the Madras High Court in In re C.W. Case (A.I.R. (35) 1948 Madras 489) if was observed that it is not necessary under Section 164 that the Magistrate should be moved by the police in order that he might record a statement. There may be instances where the police may not desire to have recorded, the statement of a witness for some reason or other. There may be instances where the police may not desire to have recorded, the statement of a witness for some reason or other. In such a case, there is nothing preventing the witness to go to the Magistrate and request him to record the statements and if a Magistrate records his statement and transmits the same to the Court where the enquiry or the trial is to go on, there is nothing wrong in his action. It was further observed that there is always a discretion in the Magistrate to refuse to record the statement. Ordinarily when a police officer requests the Magistrate to record the statement of a witness on oath under Section 164, Criminal P.C. such a request will not be refused by the Magistrate. But when a private party seeks to invoke the powers of a Magistrate under Section 164 Criminal P.C, the Magistrate has got a very wide discretion in acting or refusing to act. It is not obligatory upon the Magistrate to record the statement of an individual simply because an application is made to him that such a statement may be necessary in an enquiry or trial that may develop as a result of the investigation. 8. I am in perfect agreement with this view. The Court has no doubt Jurisdiction to reject an application under Section 164 Criminal P.C. but the discretion has to be exercised judiciously. The application cannot be rejected for irrelevant consideration. In the present case, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate was over-obsessed with the nature of crime under investigation. It is absolutely irrelevant in deciding an application under Section 164 Criminal P.C. as to how serious the crime is The only relevant considerations are as to whether the statement would have any reasonable connection with the investigation alleged to be going on and as to whether circumstances exist indicating necessity for the witness to approach the Court with the prayer. 9. In the present case, the petitioner has clearly fulfilled both these conditions. As the allegation is that the petitioner is married to accused Dilip K. Vasu and as that is the basis for alleging that Dilip K. Vasu has committed bigamy, the statement of the petitioner cannot be said to be irrelevant or unconnected with the investigation. 9. In the present case, the petitioner has clearly fulfilled both these conditions. As the allegation is that the petitioner is married to accused Dilip K. Vasu and as that is the basis for alleging that Dilip K. Vasu has committed bigamy, the statement of the petitioner cannot be said to be irrelevant or unconnected with the investigation. Secondly as the petitioner has clearly alleged that the investigations were not being conducted fairly and it is being spread by the Police that the petitioner had admitted her marriage with accused Dilip K. Vasu, there is clearly a basis for apprehension that her statement would not be recorded faithfully by the Police and therefore the petitioner has a reasonable basis for moving an application under Section 164 Criminal P.C. 10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this revision petition deserves to be allowed. It is hereby allowed. The impugned Order dated October 17, 1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal is set aside. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to allow application under Section 164 Criminal P.C. and examine the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhinmal within fifteen days from today with a certified copy of this Order. The learned Magistrate shall record the statement of the petitioner under Section 164 Criminal P.C. on the day on which she presents herself before the Court as directed by this Order. If for any compelling circumstances, the statement could not be recorded on the same day, it shall be orded atleast on the following day.Revision Allowed. *******