Timely Investigation Under BNSS Is Mandatory: Unexplained Delay Defeats Purpose Of Reformed Criminal Law: Madras HC [Read Order]

Chennai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has emphasized that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 mandates strict adherence to investigation timelines, ruling that unexplained delays defeat the purpose of India’s reformed criminal justice framework.

Justice L. Victoria Gowri delivered the judgment on December 8, 2025, while hearing a criminal original petition filed by an accused seeking directions to complete the investigation and file a final report in a murder case registered in January 2024.

The case involved a murder that occurred on January 8, 2024, with the FIR registered three days later, on January 11, 2024. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition seeking transfer of the investigation, pursuant to which the Court, on July 10, 2024, directed the Superintendent of Police to form a proper team, monitor the investigation, and ensure that the culprits were identified. Despite these directions, the investigation had not culminated in a final report even after eleven months.

The Court opened with observations on the transformative nature of the three new criminal codes—the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Justice Gowri noted that these enactments mark a constitutional transformation in India’s criminal jurisprudence, representing the first conscious re-engineering of the criminal process since Independence.

The Court highlighted that, unlike colonial enactments historically designed to serve imperial administration and control subjects, the new codes are victim-centric, citizen-responsive, and justice-oriented. They emphasize timeliness, transparency, accountability, and proportionality, recognizing delay itself as a denial of justice.

The Court examined Section 193 of the BNSS, which establishes a strict regime of time-bound investigation comprising three key mandates. Section 193(1) requires that every investigation be completed without unnecessary delay. Section 193(2) prescribes specific outer time limits—investigations must ordinarily be completed within ninety days for offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more, and within sixty days for all other offences. Section 193(3) mandates that if an investigation is not completed within the prescribed period, the investigating officer must record reasons in writing and intimate the Magistrate of such delay.

Justice Gowri held that these provisions create a positive duty to complete investigations promptly, establish outer time limits, and institute a compulsory accountability mechanism for delay. The Court emphasized that these provisions are mandatory in nature and bind the investigating agency.

The statute, therefore, imposes not merely directory guidelines but binding obligations that investigating agencies must strictly adhere to.

In the present case, the FIR was registered on January 11, 2024, and the investigation had not culminated in a final report even after the lapse of the period contemplated under Section 193(2) of the BNSS. The Court noted with concern that no material was placed before it to show that reasons for the delay were recorded in writing or intimated to the jurisdictional Magistrate, as required under Section 193(3).

The Court held that 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.

Finding the delay unjustified, the Court issued three specific directions.

First, the respondent police were directed to complete the investigation in Crime No. 17 of 2024 and file a final report before the jurisdictional court within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Second, if for any legally acceptable reason the investigation could not be completed within that period, the investigating officer was required to strictly comply with Section 193(3) of the BNSS by recording reasons in writing and placing the same before the jurisdictional Magistrate without fail.

Third, the petitioner was granted liberty to work out remedies in accordance with law if the directions were not complied with.

In her epilogue, Justice Gowri reflected on the broader significance of the BNSS, observing that it embodies a shift from a punitive colonial framework to a justice-centric democratic framework. Timely investigation, the Court held, is the first guarantee of fairness to both the victim and the accused.

The Court noted that the BNSS provisions ensure that investigating agencies cannot indefinitely keep the sword of uncertainty hanging over the head of an accused or allow victims to languish without closure. This represents a fundamental reorientation of the criminal justice system toward both protecting rights and delivering justice expeditiously.

The Court concluded by stating that it expects diligent adherence to statutory timelines by investigating agencies, emphasizing that compliance with these timelines is not optional but a mandatory component of the reformed criminal justice system.

Case Title: Pushpavalli @ Pushbam v. The Superintendent of Police and Others
(Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 982 of 2025)

[Read Order]