Introduction:
In the case of Nirmala Bhavesh Parmar vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 16212 of 2024), the Bombay High Court addressed a crucial issue concerning police obligations to update complainants on the progress of investigations. Nirmala Bhavesh Parmar filed a writ petition requesting that the Mumbai Police comply with provisions in the newly enforced Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The petitioner sought directives to ensure that police officers provided timely updates on investigations, including copies of the chargesheet or action taken report. The case highlighted a key reform aimed at improving transparency in police procedures under the BNSS.
A division bench comprising Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Prithviraj Chavan examined whether the Mumbai Police had adhered to the updated provisions of the BNSS, specifically the requirement to inform complainants within 90 days of filing a First Information Report (FIR). The court considered the arguments made by both sides and acknowledged that the Maharashtra government had issued a circular instructing police officers to strictly follow these new provisions.
Arguments by the Petitioner (Nirmala Bhavesh Parmar):
The petitioner, represented by advocates Reshma Nair, Devmani Shukla, Rajesh Sahani, and Vivekanand Aksali, sought the court’s intervention to ensure compliance with Section 193(3)(ii) and 193(3)(iii) of the BNSS, which require police to provide updates to complainants within 90 days of filing an FIR. Parmar argued that the Mumbai Police had failed to meet this obligation, causing significant delays and lack of transparency in the investigation process. She contended that timely communication from the police was essential for protecting the rights of complainants and ensuring accountability during investigations.
Arguments by the State (Maharashtra Government):
Representing the State, Additional Public Prosecutor KV Saste informed the court that the government had already addressed the petitioner’s concerns. A circular issued on August 23 instructed all police officers to strictly comply with Section 193 of the BNSS, ensuring that complainants were updated on investigations within the mandated 90-day period. The prosecutor argued that the circular resolved the issues raised in the petition, and no further court orders were necessary. Saste emphasized that the government was committed to improving police practices and fostering better communication between law enforcement and citizens.
Court’s Judgment:
The Bombay High Court, after reviewing the arguments, acknowledged that the CrPC had been replaced by the BNSS, with Section 193(3)(ii) and (iii) now governing the police’s duty to update complainants. The court recognized the Maharashtra government’s proactive approach in issuing the August 23 circular, which instructed police officers to comply with the new provisions, thereby addressing the petitioner’s concerns.
The bench concluded that since the State had already implemented measures to ensure compliance with the BNSS, the petitioner’s plea had been effectively resolved. The court disposed of the petition but directed the police to provide the petitioner with a copy of the charge sheet within a week, ensuring that her rights were respected in the ongoing investigation.
The judgment emphasized the importance of transparency in investigations and commended the government for its prompt action in enforcing the BNSS provisions. The court further observed that the BNSS was designed to strengthen citizens’ rights, ensuring greater accountability and reducing frustration for complainants during investigations.
In conclusion, the court formally disposed of the petition, reinforcing the expectation that timely updates to complainants would be a key feature of police investigations under the new law.