Justice L Victoria Gowri while issuing directions to a police officer on December 2 called the implementation of the new laws “a constitutional transformation” in India’s criminal jurisprudence.
“For the first time since Independence, the criminal process has been consciously re-engineered to be victim-centric, citizen-responsive and justice-oriented, in contrast to the colonial enactments which were historically designed to subserve the interests of an imperial administration and to control its subjects,” she said.
Case
The court was hearing a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking a direction to the police inspector of crime branch, Theni district to file a final report in a case of the accused man.
The said Section of the BNSS mirrors the inherent powers of high courts under the old CrPC Section 482 to prevent abuse of court process, secure justice, and give effect to orders, allowing it to quash FIRs, criminal proceedings, or make necessary orders when justice demands, especially in cases of malicious prosecution or settlements, ensuring fairness and preventing misuse of law.
The petitioner approached the high court requesting directions to the police citing delay. He informed the court that an FIR was registered against him on February 21 and since then no final report had been filed.
Arguments
Advocate V Muthusamundeeswaran appearing for the petitioner informed the court that such delay is contrary to the statutory mandate under Section 193 BNSS, which prescribes time-bound investigation.
Story continues below this ad
Opposing the submissions, government advocate M Sakthi Kumar submitted that the investigation is in progress and the investigating officer will abide by any timeline fixed by the court.
Observations
Asserting that the petition deserves to be examined under mandate of “constitutional justice”, the court said, “The BNSS, 2023 embodies a shift from a punitive colonial framework to a justice-centric democratic framework.”
It added, “Timely investigation is the first guarantee of fairness to both victims and accused. This Court expects diligent adherence to statutory timelines by the investigating agency.”
Codifying strict timelines for investigation in Section 193 of the BNSS, the new laws ensure that the investigating agency cannot indefinitely keep the “sword of uncertainty” hanging over the head of an accused or allow victims to languish without closure, the bench added.
Story continues below this ad
Showering praises to the new criminal laws, the court said that the BNSS has introduced a strict regime of time-bound investigation including section 193(1) mandating that every investigation under this shall be completed without unnecessary delay and section 193(2) which mandates that in relation to offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more, the investigation shall ordinarily be completed within ninety days.
Further, the bench said that in all other offences, the investigation must be completed within sixty days.
Outlining that section 193(3) of the BNSS, mandates that if the investigation is not completed within the period prescribed, the court said that the investigating officer has to record the reasons in writing and intimate the magistrate of such delay.
The statute therefore creates- a positive duty to complete investigation promptly, outer time limits and a compulsory accountability mechanism for delay, it said.
Story continues below this ad
The bench added, “These provisions are mandatory in nature and bind the investigating agency.”
Taking note that the investigation has not culminated in a final report even after the lapse of the period contemplated under Section 193(2) BNSS, the court said there is nothing to show that the reasons for delay were recorded in writing or that the same was intimated to the jurisdictional magistrate as required.
“Such unexplained delay defeats the very purpose of the reformed statutory architecture, which mandates expeditious investigation so that the criminal process becomes an instrument of justice rather than a prolonged ordeal,” it said.
The court ordered the police officer to complete the investigation in the case and file a final report before the jurisdictional court within a period of eight weeks.
Story continues below this ad
Directing the officer to record reasons in writing and to place the same before the jurisdictional magistrate without fail in case the investigation cannot be completed in the said time period, the bench said that the petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies in accordance with law if the directions are not complied with.
