Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri disposed of a petition by the petitioner seeking a time-bound direction to the police respondents to conclude investigation in a case relating to an alleged murder, after the final report was not filed despite the FIR having been registered in January 2024. Noting that the new criminal laws—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam—have reshaped the criminal process to be more victim-centric, citizen-responsive and justice-oriented, the Court directed the investigating agency to complete the probe and file the final report before the jurisdictional court within four weeks, with written reasons to be placed before the Magistrate if the timeline cannot be met.

The petitioner approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking a direction to the police respondents to file a final report in a murder case registered at the local police station.

Also Read: ESIC Cannot Invoke ESI Act Section 45A For Contribution Periods Older Than Five Years After Employer Cooperates And Produces Records; Supreme Court

According to the order, the alleged murder took place on 08.01.2024 and the FIR was registered on 11.01.2024. The petitioner had earlier moved the High Court seeking transfer of investigation, following which the Court directed the district Superintendent of Police to constitute a proper team, monitor the investigation, and ensure identification of the perpetrators. The Superintendent of Police thereafter placed reports before the Court about the then status of investigation.

In the present petition, the relief sought was framed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court referred to Section 193 of the BNSS, including the requirement to complete investigation without unnecessary delay, the ordinary outer timelines prescribed for completing investigation depending on the gravity of the offence, and the requirement to record reasons for delay in writing and intimate the jurisdictional Magistrate if the investigation is not completed within the stipulated period. The Court recorded that the investigation had not culminated in a final report within the contemplated period and that no material was placed to show written reasons for delay or intimation to the Magistrate.

The Court stated: “The advent of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 marks 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.” “The new Codes emphasise timeliness, transparency, accountability, and proportionality, recognising delay as a denial of justice.” “In particular, the BNSS, 2023, by codifying strict timelines for investigation in Section 193, ensures 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.” “It is in this mandate of constitutional justice that the present petition deserves to be examined.”

The Court recorded: “The BNSS has introduced a strict regime of time-bound investigation, which reads as follows:” “(i) Section 193(1) BNSS mandates that every investigation under this Sanhita shall be completed without unnecessary delay.” “(ii) Section 193(2) BNSS mandates that in relation to offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more, the investigation shall ordinarily be completed within ninety days; and in all other offences, within sixty days.” “(iii) Section 193(3) BNSS, mandates that if the investigation is not completed within the period prescribed, the investigating officer shall record the reasons in writing and intimate the Magistrate of such delay.” “The statute therefore creates (i) a positive duty to complete investigation promptly; (ii) outer time limits; and (iii) a compulsory accountability mechanism for delay.” “These provisions are mandatory in nature and bind the investigating agency.”

The Court noted: “This Court notes that the FIR in the present case was registered on 11.01.2024 and the investigation has not culminated in a final report even after the lapse of the period contemplated under Section 193(2) BNSS.” “No material is placed before this Court to show that the reasons for delay were recorded in writing or that the same was intimated to the jurisdictional Magistrate as required under Section 193(3) BNSS.”

The Court stated: “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.” The Court recorded in the epilogue: “The BNSS, 2023 embodies a shift from a punitive colonial framework to a justice-centric democratic framework.” “Timely investigation is the first guarantee of fairness to both victim and accused.” “This Court expects diligent adherence to statutory timelines by the investigating agency.”

Also Read: Intra-Court Patent Appeals Barred Under Commercial Courts Act Section 13: Madras High Court

The Court directed that “the respondents police are directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.17 of 2024 and file a final report before the jurisdictional Court within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If for any legally acceptable reason the investigation cannot be completed within the above period, the investigating officer shall strictly comply with Section 193(3) BNSS by recording reasons in writing and placing the same before the jurisdictional Magistrate without fail.”

“The petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies in accordance with law if the above directions are not complied with.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Kumaravel, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. M. Sakthivel, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: Pushpavalli @ Pushbam v. Superintendent of Police & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:2904
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No.982 of 2025
Bench: Justice L. Victoria Gowri