JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The refusal of the Magistrate to record the statement of the victim u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the "Cr. P.C.") in Nilgiri P.S. Case No. 1l6 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 178 of 1998 pending in the file of the sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nilgiri, has occasioned the present application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. by the victim herself. 2. It is apparent from the impugned order of the Magistrate that she refused to record the statement of the victim on the ground that she did not state anything implicating the accused. It is not well settled by series of decision of this Court recorded in State of Orissa Vs. Amitava Prasad Das, ; Dhaneswar Mallik and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, and Bhima Mallik Vs. State of Orissa, that Section 164, Cr. P.C. empowers any Magistrate whether he has got jurisdiction in the case or not to record the statement of any person u/s 164, Cr. P.C. such statement can be recorded in course of investigation or even after completion of investigation, but before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. It is further clear from the aforesaid decisions that recording of such statement can be made on the basis of application of the investigating agency, the reformant, the accused or even any witness. It is not necessary that such application should be tiled only by the prosecution, that is to say, only by the Investigating Officer.. It is, of course, true, as observed in those decisions,that Section 164 gives a wide discretion to the Magistrate to record such statement, but as observed in the aforesaid decisions, such direction must be exercised judiciously. 3. In the present case, it appears that the Magistrate refused to record the statement merely because according to the Magistrate, the deponent did not implicate the named accused person. It is for the witness, that is to say, the victim to explain under what circumstances she wants to make statement u/s 164, Cr. P.C. which apparently may vary from the statement already recorded by the police but that cannot be a ground for the Magistrate to refuse to record the statement. It is obvious that the Magistrate has mechanically rejected the application without application of judicial mind. In this application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. which apparently may vary from the statement already recorded by the police but that cannot be a ground for the Magistrate to refuse to record the statement. It is obvious that the Magistrate has mechanically rejected the application without application of judicial mind. In this application u/s 482, Cr. P.C., supported by affidavit of the victim petition herself, many allegations have been made. but it is not necessary to delve into those allegations. It is made clear that if a fresh petition is filed before the Magistrate the statement of the victim should be recorded u/s 164, Code of Criminal Procedure notwithstanding the previous order dated 28-7-1998. 4. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. Crl. Misc. case disposed of.