In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has clarified the procedural nuances regarding the registration and investigation of First Information Reports (FIRs) in light of the recent enforcement of new criminal laws in India. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, addresses the application of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in cases where offences were committed before July 1, 2024, but FIRs were lodged thereafter.
Background of the Case
The case in question, Deepu and 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others (CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 12287 of 2024), involved petitioners Deepu and others seeking the quashing of an FIR dated July 3, 2024. The FIR was registered under various sections of the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act at the Maudaha Police Station in Hamirpur District. The petitioners, represented by advocates Rahul Mishra and Sanjay Mishra, argued against the registration of the FIR under the IPC, contending that it should have been under the BNS, which came into force on July 1, 2024. The respondents were represented by Bhaiya Lal Yadav and the Additional Advocate General, P.C. Srivastava.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue revolved around the appropriate legal framework for registering FIRs for offences committed before the enforcement of the BNS but reported afterward. The court examined the implications of the new procedural laws, namely the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Court’s Decision and Observations
The court held that FIRs for offences committed before July 1, 2024, should be registered under the IPC, as it was the substantive law in force at the time of the offence. However, the investigation should proceed according to the BNSS, the procedural law effective from July 1, 2024. This decision was rooted in Article 20 of the Indian Constitution, which protects against retroactive criminal legislation.
The court quoted Section 531 of the BNSS, emphasizing that ongoing investigations as of the repeal of the CrPC would continue under its provisions. However, new investigations initiated after the enactment of the BNSS, for offences committed prior, would follow the BNSS procedures.
The court also referred to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, which maintains that the repeal of an Act does not affect any investigation or legal proceeding commenced under the repealed Act. This ensures continuity and consistency in legal processes.
Important Observations
The court noted, “If an FIR is registered on or after July 1, 2024, for an offence committed prior to this date, it should be under the provisions of the IPC, but the investigation will continue as per BNSS.” This observation underscores the court’s commitment to upholding procedural integrity while respecting the substantive law applicable at the time of the offence.
Lawyers
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Rahul Mishra and Sanjay Mishra, while the State of U.P. was represented by Additional Advocate General P.C. Srivastava, assisted by Additional Government Advocate J.K. Upadhyay, and counsel for the informant, Bhaiya Lal Yadav.
