Case Law
Subject : Criminal Law - Interpretation of New Criminal Laws, Quashing of FIR
Jaipur
, Rajasthan
– The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant order, has clarified the applicability of the new criminal laws –
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
(BNS) and
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
(
The Court made these observations while allowing a petition (S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5522/2024) filed by
The dispute stemmed from the estate of the petitioners' late paternal grandmother. The complainant,
The primary legal contention revolved around whether an FIR could be registered under the repealed IPC after the BNS came into force on July 1, 2024. The Court framed three key questions:
Petitioners' Arguments (
Respondents' Arguments (State of Rajasthan &
Justice
Monga
extensively analyzed the repeal and savings clauses in Section 358 of BNS and Section 531 of
On Substantive Law ( IPC vs. BNS): The Court held: > "In my opinion, a combined reading of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and aforesaid saving provisions of section 358 of the BNS amply show that the IPC shall apply to any obligation, liability, penalty or punishment accrued or incurred before 01.07.2024. In other words, in respect of the offences committed under the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) before 01.07.2024, the offender can/has to be dealt with and punished under IPC even after enforcement of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita from 01.07.2024."
The Court concurred with a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Deepu & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. , stating: > "...if an FIR is registered on or after 1.7.2024 for the offence committed prior to 1.7.2024, then FIR has to be registered under the provisions of IPC ."
The Court clarified that Section 358(2) of BNS preserves liability for past IPC offences, while Section 358(3) protects actions validly taken under the IPC before its repeal. Interpreting Section 358(3) to mean no IPC FIRs post-repeal would lead to "illogical and absurd consequences."
Thus, Question (a) was answered Affirmative ( IPC FIR is valid), and Question (b) Negative (BNS FIR for pre-BNS IPC offence is not valid).
On Procedural Law (CrPC vs.
Therefore, for FIRs registered after July 1, 2024 (like the present case), even for pre-transition
IPC
offences, the procedural law for investigation and subsequent proceedings would be the
Despite upholding the validity of registering the FIR under IPC sections, the Court proceeded to quash it on merits. After scrutinizing the FIR's contents, Justice Monga found that the allegations did not make out the essential ingredients for the invoked IPC sections:
The Court concluded: > "To sum up, the vague and unsupported nature of the accusations are combined with the fact that the dispute in the FIR primarily revolves around the interpretation of a Will and property rights, which is a civil matter rather than a criminal one... Criminal law cannot be used to settle civil disputes. FIR in hand seems like an attempt to escalate a family property dispute into a criminal case."
Finding the continuation of criminal proceedings to be an "abuse of legal process" and that the FIR did not disclose the commission of any offence, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 0299/2024 and all consequential proceedings.
This judgment provides crucial guidance on the transitional provisions of the new criminal laws, affirming that past offences remain punishable under the old substantive law (
IPC
) but will be processed under the new procedural framework (
#NewCriminalLaws #IPC #FIRQuashing #RajasthanHighCourt
Bombay HC Grants Interim Protection from Arrest Despite Pending Anticipatory Bail in Lower Court Due to Accused's Marriage: Sections 351(2), 64(2)(m), 74 IPC
01 May 2026
Allahabad HC Dismisses FIR Plea Against Rahul Gandhi
01 May 2026
Arbitrary Road Height Raising Banned Without Approval: Patna HC Enforces SOP, Penalizes Contractors
01 May 2026
Delhi HC Closes ANI's Copyright Suit Against PTI After Amicable Settlement Under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC
01 May 2026
Post-Conviction NDPS Bail Can't Be Granted Solely on Long Incarceration; Section 37 Twin Conditions Mandatory: J&K&L High Court
01 May 2026
Defying Transfer Order Justifies Removal from Service Despite Family Care Plea: Orissa High Court
01 May 2026
Heavy Machinery Barred in Mining Leases Except Dredging: Uttarakhand HC Directs DM to Enforce Rule 29(17) of Minor Mineral Rules
01 May 2026
Administrative Actions Judged on Materials at Time of Decision, Not Subsequent Developments: Patna High Court
01 May 2026
No Deemed Confirmation After Probation Without Written Order Under Model Standing Orders Clause 4A: Bombay High Court
01 May 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.