BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 03.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.22180 of 2025

T.Vignesh ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The State of Tamilnadu,

The Inspector of Police,

Theni Police Station,

Theni District.

(Cr.No.153 of 2025) ... Respondent

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the respondent to file a final report in the above Crime

No.153 of 2025, within a stipulated time frame.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prithviraj

For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

Preface:

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.

2. 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.

3. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section

528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking a direction to the respondent to file a final report with respect to the Crime No.153 of 2025.

Submissions:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the FIR was registered on 23.04.2025, no final report has been filed till date. Such delay is contrary to the statutory mandate under Section 193 BNSS, which prescribes time-bound investigation. It is therefore prayed that necessary directions be issued.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submits that the investigation is in progress and the investigating officer shall abide by any time-line fixed by this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

Analysis:

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. This Court notes that the FIR in the present case was registered on 23.04.2025 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. 10. 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.

11. Accordi