Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Filing Date of Petition Irrelevant—If FIR Is Under IPC Before 1 July 2024, CrPC Will Apply : Full Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Applicability of BNSS

27 March 2025 8:40 PM

By: sayum


The cut-off date of 01.07.2024 assumes no relevance—the date of commission of offence and FIR registration determines the applicability of CrPC, not the date on which the petition is filed - Resolving a pressing procedural dilemma arising from India’s transition to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant Full Bench judgment delivered on 19 March 2025, held that criminal applications filed after 1 July 2024 would still be maintainable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) if the offence was committed and the FIR registered prior to that date. The Court categorically held that “even if the application is filed post 01.07.2024, if it relates to an offence committed and registered under IPC before that date, it shall be governed by the CrPC.”

The case, Ram Chander v. State of Haryana & Ors., CRM-M-33899-2024, arose from conflicting Single Bench views on the scope and effect of Section 531 of the BNSS, which repeals the CrPC with effect from 1 July 2024, and introduced significant uncertainty over whether bail and quashing petitions filed after that date must be under the new law.

“Applications filed after repeal are still part of the procedural continuum if the offence occurred under the old law”

The Full Bench—comprising Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, Justice Sandeep Moudgil, and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan—rejected the narrow interpretation adopted in earlier decisions that CrPC petitions filed after 1 July 2024 stood barred, terming it inconsistent with both statutory language and legislative intent.

Referring to Section 531 of BNSS, which provides that pending trials, inquiries, appeals, and investigations will continue under CrPC, the Bench expanded the interpretation by stating, “Applications for anticipatory bail, regular bail, or quashing form a genus of the same species as 'inquiry', 'trial', or 'investigation'—they flow from the same cause of action and are part of the procedural chain that the CrPC still governs if the offence occurred before 01.07.2024.”

“Principles of ejusdem generis must apply—interpretation must favour continuity, not disruption”

Applying the interpretive doctrine of ejusdem generis, the Court held that the saving clause in Section 531 BNSS must be read purposively and not restrictively. The Bench observed, “The Legislature did not intend to fragment a single criminal proceeding into dual regimes merely on account of when the application is filed. The intent is clear: offences under IPC before 01.07.2024 remain under the CrPC regime.”

The Court emphasized that a contrary interpretation would lead to absurdity, where different procedures might apply in the same criminal case based solely on the date of filing a particular application.

“The very source of prosecution—IPC—determines the procedural law, not the filing date of an interlocutory application”

In Ram Chander, an FIR was registered on 1 May 2024 under Sections 376(2)(n), 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC on 15 July 2024, i.e., after the CrPC stood repealed. The opposing side questioned the maintainability of the application under a law that no longer existed.

Rejecting the challenge, the Court held, “The mere fact that the application under Section 438 CrPC was filed post 01.07.2024 does not strip the petitioner of the right to seek relief under the law that was in force when the offence occurred and the FIR was lodged.”

The Court expressly overruled earlier views to the contrary, particularly in Abhishek Jain v. UT Chandigarh, where a petition was dismissed solely on the ground that it was filed under CrPC after 1 July 2024.

“Reliefs cannot be denied based on shifting legal sands—legal rights vested under CrPC survive repeal”

The Full Bench underscored that procedural rights accrued under the CrPC cannot be extinguished merely because of the date on which the application is moved. “It is not the date of the petition that matters—it is the offence and the FIR that define the applicable legal regime,” the Court reiterated.

Noting the confusion prevalent in trial courts and among lawyers, the Court directed that this judgment be circulated to all Judicial Officers across Punjab, Haryana, and U.T. Chandigarh, and also to the Judicial Academy to ensure uniform understanding and application.

This Full Bench judgment affirms the legal position that the CrPC continues to govern all proceedings arising from offences committed under IPC prior to 1 July 2024, even if the applications are filed thereafter. It balances the rule of law with transitional clarity and reaffirms that the procedural path cannot shift retrospectively just because a new statute has come into effect.

The Court decisively held: “The date of filing an application is immaterial—so long as the offence and FIR fall under IPC and CrPC prior to 01.07.2024, the CrPC continues to apply.”

Date of Decision: 19 March 2025

Latest Legal News