Prabakaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu

Crl.O.P(MD)No.1867 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 02.02.2026CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRICrl.O.P(MD)No.1867 of 2026 Prabakaran ... Petitioner/ Defacto ComplainantVs.

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its The Superintendent of Police, Office of the Superintendent of Police, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

The Inspector of Police, Nagudi Police Station, Pudukottai District. (Crime No.516/2020) ... Respondents / ComplainantsPrayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to direct the Respondents expeditiously complete the investigation and file final report in Crime No.576 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent No.2 within the time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner: Mr.R.RajaselvanFor Respondent: Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate(Crl. Side)1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.1867 of 2026 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 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.1867 of 2026mandate of constitutional justice that the present petition deserves to be examined.

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 to direct the Respondents expeditiously complete the investigation and file final report in Crime No.576 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent No.2 within the time stipulated by this Court. Submissions:

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the FIR was registered on 06.11.2020, 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.3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.1867 of 20265. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the investigation is in progress and the investigating officer shall abide by any timeline fixed by this Court.

Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. Analysis:

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 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.1867 of 2026shall record the reasons in writing and intimate the Magistrate of such delay.

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.

The petitioner states that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have approached him with an offer to sell a TATA ACE vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 65 Q 9877 belonging to one Farook for Rs.2,50,000/-. The petitioner paid an advance of Rs.55,000/- with the accused assuring that the remaining amount would be arranged through finance. However, the finance was not arranged within a week, and the accused agreed to return Rs.48,000/- after deducting one week’s vehicle rent. Despite this, they failed to repay the amount, cheated the petitioner, and also criminally intimidated him. Hence, F.I.R in Crime No.576 of 2020 was registered on the file of the respondent police for 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.1867 of 2026the offence under Section 420 and 506(1) of IPC. This Court notes that the FIR in the present case was registered on 06.11.2020 and the investigation has not culminated in a final report even after the lapse of the period contemplated under Section 193(2) BNSS. No material is placed before this Court to show that the reasons for delay were recorded in writing or that the same was intimated to the jurisdictional Magistrate as required under Section 193(3) BNSS.

Such unexplained delay defeats the very purpose of the reformed statutory architecture, which mandates expeditious investigation so that the criminal process becomes an instrument of justice rather than a prolonged ordeal.

Accordingly, this Court is inclined to issue appropriate directions.

In the light of the above statutory mandate and taking into account the facts and submissions, the following directions are issued: (i) The respondent police is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.576 of 2020 and file a final report before the jurisdictional Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P(MD)No.1867 of 2026this order. (ii) If for any legally acceptable reason the investigation cannot be completed within the above period, the investigating officer shall strictly comply with Section 193(3) BNSS by recording reasons in writing and placing the same before the jurisdictional Magistrate without fail. (iii) The petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedies in accordance with law if the above directions are not complied with. Epilogue: