‘For the First Time Since Independence, Criminal Process Has Become Victim-Centric, Citizen-Responsive’: Madras HC

The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently reiterated that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 mandates strict adherence to timelines for criminal investigation and that unexplained delay defeats the very purpose of the reformed statutory framework governing criminal procedure.

The bench of Justice L. Victoria Gowri was dealing with a petition filed by Pushpavalli alias Pushbam seeking a direction to the police to file a final report in a murder case registered at Kalayarkovil Police Station in Sivagangai district in January 2024. While examining the grievance, Justice Gowri placed the issue in the context of the fundamental shift brought about by India’s new criminal laws.

Justice Gowri noted that the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam together mark a constitutional transformation in criminal jurisprudence. She observed that for the first time since Independence, the criminal process has been consciously redesigned to be victim-centric, citizen-responsive and justice-oriented, unlike the colonial enactments which were historically intended to control subjects and protect imperial interests.

The judge further observed that the new Codes emphasise timeliness, transparency, accountability and proportionality, and expressly recognise that delay amounts to a denial of justice. In this context, the bench highlighted the importance of Section 193 of the BNSS, which codifies strict timelines for investigation.

Referring to the statutory scheme, Justice Gowri pointed out that Section 193(1) mandates that every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay. Section 193(2) provides that investigations relating to offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more shall ordinarily be completed within ninety days, while all other investigations must be completed within sixty days. Section 193(3), the judge noted, imposes a further obligation on the investigating officer to record reasons in writing and intimate the jurisdictional magistrate if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period.

Applying these provisions to the facts before it, court noted that the FIR in the present case was registered on January 11, 2024, and that the investigation had not culminated in the filing of a final report even after the lapse of the period contemplated under Section 193(2) of the BNSS.

The bench recorded that no material had been placed before it to show that reasons for the delay were recorded in writing or that such reasons were placed before the jurisdictional magistrate as mandated under Section 193(3).

Court observed 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. It reiterated that timely investigation is the first guarantee of fairness to both the victim and the accused.

In view of the statutory mandate and the facts of the case, court directed the police to complete the investigation and file a final report before the jurisdictional court within four weeks. It further directed that if the investigation could not be completed for any legally acceptable reason, the investigating officer must strictly comply with Section 193(3) of the BNSS by recording reasons in writing and placing the same before the magistrate.

Case Title: Pushpavalli @ Pushbam vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District and Others

Order Date: December 8, 2025

Bench:  Justice L. Victoria Gowri