Introduction:

In *Arunkumar vs. State of Karnataka* (Criminal Petition No. 200913 of 2024), the Karnataka High Court ruled that FIRs registered under the repealed Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) post-July 1, 2024, when the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) came into effect, were invalid. A single judge bench of Justice K. Natarajan, sitting at the Kalaburagi bench, quashed an FIR lodged against the petitioner, Arunkumar, under Sections 376, 323, 506, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court held that FIRs post the enforcement of BNSS must be registered under the new law and not under the repealed CrPC. However, the complaint itself was retained, and the case was remitted back to the police for proper investigation under BNSS. This case raised significant procedural questions about the applicability of BNSS in ongoing cases and clarified the procedural transition from CrPC to BNSS for cases filed post-July 1, 2024.

Arguments from Both Sides:

Petitioner’s Argument (Arunkumar):

Arunkumar, the petitioner-accused, argued that the FIR registered against him by the Lingasugur police on July 1, 2024, was invalid because it was done under Section 154 of CrPC, which had been repealed and replaced by the BNSS. He contended that since the complaint was filed after the BNSS came into effect, the police could not register the FIR under the old CrPC. Instead, the FIR should have been registered under Section 173 of the BNSS, and the investigation should have followed the new procedural rules under the BNSS, including Section 176 for investigation and Section 193 for the final report.

The petitioner also pointed out that the complaint concerned events that occurred on June 24, 2021, and subsequent dates, all before June 30, 2024. While the alleged incidents occurred under the CrPC regime, the complaint was lodged after BNSS came into force. Therefore, the investigation should have conformed to the new BNSS framework. The petitioner argued that the registration of the FIR under the repealed CrPC was a procedural defect, invalidating the entire case.

Prosecution’s Argument (State of Karnataka):

The police, represented by the prosecution, contended that the FIR registered against Arunkumar was merely a clerical error. They explained that the FIR format in their computer system had not been updated to reflect the new BNSS provisions, and as a result, the FIR was mistakenly registered under the CrPC. The prosecution argued that this was a minor error that could be corrected at the request of the Magistrate and did not warrant quashing the FIR.

Moreover, the prosecution emphasized that the investigation was already being conducted under the BNSS, as indicated in Column 11(C) of the FIR, which stated that the investigation was under Section 176 of BNSS. They contended that the mistake in the registration of the FIR was not substantial and should not lead to the quashing of the entire case. They further argued that Section 358(2)(a) of the BNSS allowed for the continued applicability of the IPC for offences committed prior to the commencement of BNSS, which justified the registration of the FIR for offences under the IPC.

The prosecution also raised the point that the savings clause under Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS did not apply, as there was no appeal, application, trial, enquiry, or investigation pending before the enactment of BNSS. They argued that the FIR should stand, and the investigation should proceed under the BNSS, despite the minor error in the FIR’s registration.

Court’s Judgment:

The Karnataka High Court, after hearing both sides, ruled in favor of the petitioner and quashed the FIR registered against him. Justice K. Natarajan meticulously examined the procedural transition from CrPC to BNSS and addressed the question of whether an FIR could be validly registered under the CrPC after it had been repealed.

The Court first referred to Section 358(2) of the BNSS, which provides a savings clause for actions taken under the CrPC before the commencement of the BNSS. This section specifies that rights accrued, liabilities incurred, or obligations imposed before July 1, 2024, would still be governed by the IPC. However, Justice Natarajan noted that the police had registered the FIR after the BNSS came into force, making the provisions of BNSS applicable to the procedure followed in the case. Since no investigation or legal process was pending before July 1, 2024, the FIR should have been registered under the new law.

The Court observed that an FIR is a foundational document that sets the law into motion and initiates the investigation process. Therefore, the procedural correctness of an FIR is of utmost importance. The Court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the error in the FIR was a clerical mistake that could be corrected. It held that the error was not merely clerical but substantive, as it involved registering an FIR under a law that no longer existed. The Court emphasized that FIRs filed post-July 1, 2024, must adhere to the BNSS, and the use of CrPC provisions after its repeal was impermissible.

Justice Natarajan further noted that the investigation under Section 176 of the BNSS could not proceed based on an FIR registered under the CrPC, as the basic foundation of the case was flawed. The Court held that the registration of an FIR under CrPC after its repeal could not be considered a curable defect, as it affected the entire legality of the investigation process. The Court reiterated that once a law has been repealed and replaced, the police must strictly follow the provisions of the new law.

In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR registered against Arunkumar under Section 154 of the CrPC and directed the police to re-register the FIR under Section 173 of the BNSS. The Court allowed the complaint filed by the victim to stand, remitting the matter back to the police for proper investigation under the BNSS framework. Justice Natarajan also issued guidelines for trial courts regarding the application of CrPC and BNSS, ensuring a smooth procedural transition in future cases.