Table of Content
1. shift from colonial punitive framework to a justice-centric, victim-oriented democratic framework under bnss. (Para 1 , 2 , 13)
2. failure of the investigating agency to file a final report within statutory timelines in a cheating case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 9)
3. mandatory nature of time-bound investigations and accountability mechanisms under section 193 bnss. (Para 7 , 8 , 10)
4. judicial direction to complete investigation within a fixed period to prevent denial of justice. (Para 11 , 12 , 14)

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 2nd respondent to file a final report with respect to the Crime No.95 of 2025.

Submissions:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the FIR was registered on 17.07.2025, 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.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is cultivating coconut saplings in his land comprised in S.No.1689/1A, 1B, 1C and 1697/1 measuring an extent of 3 acres 60 cents. In the year 2023, A1 approached the petitioner and he would get an agricultural loan of Rs.30,00,000/- from A2 bank and the same was repaid within three years. But, the petitioner has to pay 10% commission to A1 and A2. Believing their words, the petitioner produced all the documents and transferred a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to A1. Thereafter, the petitioner received only Rs.5,00,000/- as loan amount from the A2 bank. When the same was questioned, A1 demande

Click Here to Read the rest of this document