In a sharp assertion of India’s newly overhauled criminal law regime, the Madras High Court has stepped in to examine a prolonged delay in a murder investigation, raising serious questions over police accountability under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court was confronted with a petition alleging that despite the passage of statutory timelines, investigators had failed to file a final report, threatening to undermine the very promise of time bound justice embedded in the new criminal codes.
The controversy began with a murder registered in January 2024, relating to an incident that occurred earlier that month. As months passed without completion of the probe, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking enforcement of investigation timelines. This was not the first judicial intervention, earlier, the Court had already directed the Superintendent of Police to form a dedicated team and personally monitor the case.
Yet, despite periodic status reports, the investigation remained incomplete, prompting renewed judicial scrutiny under the newly enacted BNSS, which mandates strict outer limits for police investigations.
Emphasising that the BNSS represents a constitutional shift away from colonial-era criminal procedure, the Court underlined that delay itself amounts to injustice. Citing Section 193 of the BNSS, the Bench noted that the law now creates a mandatory duty to complete investigations within fixed timelines, backed by an accountability mechanism for delay. Recording its disapproval, the Court observed that “such unexplained delay defeats the very purpose of the reformed statutory architecture”, and found no material to show that reasons for delay were recorded or placed before the Magistrate as required by law.
Consequently, the Court directed the police to complete the investigation and file the final report within four weeks, warning that any further delay must strictly comply with statutory safeguards.
Case Title: Pushpavalli @ Pushbam Vs. The Superintendent of Police and Ors.
Case No.: Crl.O.P.(MD) No.982 of 2025
Coram: Justice L.Victoria Gowri
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Kumaravel
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. M.Sakthivel (Government Advocate)
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
