Rajasthan HC: Pre-01.07.2024 Offences Fall Under IPC, Investigation Under BNSS; FIR Quashed if Dispute Civil & Lacks Criminality

Rajasthan High Court Clarifies Application of New Criminal Laws, Quashes FIR in Family Property Dispute

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 ( BNSS ) – for offences committed before their enforcement on July 1, 2024. Justice ArunMonga ruled that FIRs for such offences must be registered under the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ), 1860, but the subsequent investigation and procedural aspects will be governed by the BNSS , 2023, if the FIR is lodged after the cut-off date.

The Court made these observations while allowing a petition (S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5522/2024) filed by Vijay Sharma , seeking the quashing of an FIR lodged against him and another by his paternal uncle, Satish Kumar . The FIR, registered on July 27, 2024, alleged offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, and criminal conspiracy ( Sections 420 , 406, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC ) related to the alleged forgery of a Will.

Case Background: A Family Feud Over Inheritance

The dispute stemmed from the estate of the petitioners' late paternal grandmother. The complainant, Satish Kumar (the deceased's son and petitioners' uncle), alleged that his nephews (the petitioners) forged his mother's Will dated October 5, 2021. He claimed that based on this allegedly forged Will, they fraudulently got property mutated in their names in revenue records after her death, in conspiracy with revenue officials.

Key Legal Questions on New Criminal Laws

The primary legal contention revolved around whether an FIR could be registered under the repealed IPC after the BNS came into force on July 1, 2024.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:

1. Can an FIR be registered under IPC after BNS enforcement for offences committed before July 1, 2024?
2. Can an FIR be registered under BNS after its enforcement for offences committed under IPC before July 1, 2024?
3. Which procedure (CrPC or BNSS ) applies to an FIR registered after BNSS enforcement for IPC offences committed before July 1, 2024?

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Arguments ( Vijay Sharma ): * The FIR under IPC was invalid as the IPC stood repealed from July 1, 2024, by the BNS. Counsel relied on Section 358(3) of BNS and a previous High Court judgment in Krishna Joshi versus State of Rajasthan . * On merits, the FIR allegations did not constitute any cognizable offence. * The dispute was purely a family matter, civil in nature, concerning property inheritance.

Respondents' Arguments (State of Rajasthan & Satish Kumar ): * A DGP circular dated June 28, 2024, directed that FIRs for offences committed before July 1, 2024, be registered under IPC , even if reported later. * Since the alleged offence (forgery of Will) occurred on October 5, 2021 (before BNS), the IPC was correctly invoked. * However, the investigation and procedure would follow BNSS as the FIR was registered post-July 1, 2024. * Article 20(1) of the Constitution mandates that conviction must be for a violation of law in force at the time of the act.

Court's Analysis on Applicability of Laws

Justice Monga extensively analyzed the repeal and savings clauses in Section 358 of BNS and Section 531 of BNSS , alongside Article 20 of the Constitution.

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. BNSS ): Regarding the applicable procedure, the Court examined Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS , which saves pending investigations, trials, etc., under the old CrPC. The Court reasoned: > "Accordingly, if F.I.R. itself is registered on or after 01.07.2024, i.e. after enforcement of BNSS , obviously the investigation would start only after it’s registration i.e. after the enforcement of BNSS . In other words there would be no investigation pending at the time of enforcement of the BNSS on 01.07.2024."

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 BNSS . This answered Question (c). The Court also noted a mistaken observation in its earlier Krishna Joshi decision concerning the procedural law for a quashing petition filed post- BNSS enforcement.

FIR Quashed on Merits: Dispute Civil, Lacks Criminality

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:

• ** Section 420 (Cheating):** No allegation of the complainant being dishonestly induced to deliver property.
• ** Section 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust):** No allegation of entrustment of property.
• Sections 467/468 (Forgery): "Absolutely no particulars and ingredients in the FIR qua the forgery of Will or record." Vague references to a "fake Will" were insufficient.
• ** Section 471 (Using forged document):** If forgery itself is not established, using a forged document doesn't arise.
• ** Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy):** Without a predicate offence, no conspiracy can be alleged; only omnibus allegations were made.

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."

Final Decision and Implications

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 ( BNSS ) if proceedings commence after July 1, 2024. It also reiterates the principle that criminal machinery should not be used to settle disputes of a civil nature, especially in family property matters where specific criminal ingredients are absent.