Author: Yogashree Anguraj A.M , student of an Sastra Deemed to be University
Deepu v State of Uttar Pradesh
Petitioners: Deepu and four others
Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh and three others.
ABSTRACT
The case Deepu & Others v. State of U.P. & Others (2024) before the Allahabad High Court provides a crucial interpretation of how ongoing criminal proceedings are to be handled during the transition from the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The judgment clarifies the legal principles governing the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs), investigation procedures, and applicability of procedural and substantive laws during this transition.
Introduction
This case sets a precedent for future transitional cases and provides clarity on the applicability of old and new criminal laws during legal transitions. However, potential challenges remain regarding procedural misinterpretations, retrospective application of investigation rules, and the validity of police directives, which may lead to future judicial reconsiderations.
Use of legal jargon
- Ex Post Facto
A Latin term meaning “after the fact.” In criminal law, it refers to laws that retroactively change the legal consequences of actions committed before the enactment of the law. Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws in criminal cases, ensuring that no one can be punished under a law that was not in force at the time of the act.
- Procedural Law
The body of law that prescribes the steps and methods for enforcing legal rights and duties. It governs the investigation, trial, and appeal process but does not define crimes or punishments. Example: The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 and its successor, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, are procedural laws.
- Substantive Law
The part of the law that defines rights, duties, and liabilities, including crimes and punishments. It determines what constitutes an offense and the corresponding penalty.
- First Information Report (FIR)
A written document prepared by the police when they receive information about a cognizable offense (one where arrest can be made without prior approval from a magistrate
- Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973
The primary procedural law governing criminal cases in India. It prescribes the process for investigation, arrest, bail, trial, and appeals.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
The new substantive criminal law replacing the IPC, 1860. It retains most of the IPC provisions but introduces new offenses, revised punishments, and modernized definitions of crimes.
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023
The new procedural law replacing CrPC, 1973. It streamlines criminal proceedings, introduces technology-driven trials, and modifies rules for arrest, bail, and investigation.
Facts
The petitioners, Deepu and four others, filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 12287 of 2024 before the Allahabad High Court. They sought the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) dated 03.07.2024, registered under Case Crime No. 0271 of 2024 at Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur. The FIR included serious allegations under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape), 354 (outraging modesty), 147 (rioting), 452 (house trespass), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The petitioners also sought a direction preventing their arrest based on the FIR. On 23.07.2024, the High Court observed that the FIR was registered under the IPC instead of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which came into effect on 01.07. 2024.The court directed the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, to file an affidavit explaining why the FIR was not lodged under the new legal framework (BNS). The affidavit submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Hamirpur, stated that the incident occurred between 02.04.2024 and 28.06.2024, before the BNS came into force.
Therefore, as per a circular dated 04.07.2024 issued by the Police Technical Services Headquarters, Uttar Pradesh, the FIR was correctly registered under the IPC, even though the procedural investigation would follow the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.The petitioners challenged the correctness of the circular, arguing that since the FIR was registered after 01.07.2024, it should have been lodged under the BNS instead of the IPC.
Issues Raised
1. Whether the FIR for an offence committed before 01.07.2024 should be registered under IPC or BNS?
2. Which procedural law-CrPC, 1973, or BNSS, 2023-applies to the investigation, trial, and appeal?
3. What is the impact of the transition from CrPC to BNSS on pending and new cases?
4. How does Article 20 of the Constitution safeguard individuals from ex post facto laws in the context of the transition from IPC/CrPC to BNS/BNSS?
Court’s Analysis
- The Allahabad High Court examined Section 531 of BNSS, which deals with the repeal and savings of CrPC, 1973. The aspects of Section 531 are:
- Pending trials, appeals, and investigations before 01.07.2024 shall continue under CrPC, 1973.
- New appeals, applications, or trials after 01.07.2024 must follow BNSS.
- If an FIR is registered after 01.07.2024 for an offence committed earlier, IPC will apply as the substantive law, but BNSS will govern procedural aspects.
- Relevance of Article 20(1) of the Constitution
The court highlighted Article 20(1), which prohibits retrospective criminal liability.
“No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act. Since the crime was committed before 01.07.2024, IPC applied as the substantive law, but the investigation and trial procedure would be under BNSS.
- Validity of the Uttar Pradesh Police Circular (04.07.2024)
The court upheld the UP Police Circular dated 04.07.2024, which provided that if an offence was committed before 01.07.2024, the FIR should be registered under IPC. However, BNSS would apply for investigation and procedural matters.
- Right to Protection from Arbitrary Arrest
The petitioners relied on Supreme Court precedents to argue that they should not be arrested arbitrarily:
1. Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (2014)
Established guidelines for arrest in offences punishable with less than seven years of imprisonment.
Directed police to follow CrPC Section 41A (now BNSS Section 35) requiring issuance of a notice before arrest.
2. Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022)
Reaffirmed that arrest should not be automatic for bailable and non-heinous offences.
The proof
Practical Impact
The judgment has significant practical implications for law enforcement and the criminal justice system:
- Law Enforcement: The court validated the UP Police Technical Services Headquarters’ circular dated July 4, 2024, which provided guidelines for FIR registration during the transition period. This administrative clarity helps ensure consistent application across the state.
- Procedural Certainty: The judgment provides clear guidance on which law applies at different stages of criminal proceedings, reducing potential confusion and litigation over procedural matters during the transition period.
- Rights Protection: The decision balances the need for procedural efficiency with the protection of fundamental rights, ensuring that accused persons are not subjected to retrospective criminal liability while allowing for modernized procedures.
Broader Implications
This judgment has several important implications for India’s criminal justice system:
- Legal Framework: It provides a comprehensive framework for handling the transition between old and new criminal laws, which could guide other high courts and lower courts facing similar questions.
- Constitutional Interpretation: The judgment demonstrates how constitutional principles, particularly Article 20, interact with major legislative changes in criminal law.
- Administrative Guidance: The court’s detailed guidelines help ensure uniform application of the new laws across the criminal justice system, reducing potential confusion and inconsistency.
Judgements
The Allahabad High Court ruled that:
1. IPC applies substantively for offences committed before 01.07.2024, even if the FIR was registered later.
2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, applies procedurally for investigation and trial.
3. Section 35 BNSS (formerly CrPC 41A) must be followed, ensuring procedural safeguards before arrest.
4. The Uttar Pradesh Police Circular (04.07.2024), which directed investigations under BNSS while retaining IPC for substantive charges, was upheld.
5. The petitioners were granted relief from immediate arrest, and the Director General of Police (DGP), UP, was directed to circulate the judgment for consistent implementation.
Precedents Cited
1. Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra (1994)
Differentiated between substantive law (prospective) and procedural law (retrospective).
Affirmed that procedural changes apply immediately unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2. Neena Aneja vs. Jai Prakash Associates (2022) 2 SCC 161
Clarified that procedural laws apply retrospectively unless stated otherwise.
3. Kerala High Court in Abdul Khadir vs. State of Kerala (2024)
Held that appeals and applications after 01.07.2024 must follow BNSS, even if the offence was committed earlier.
4. Punjab & Haryana High Court (CRM-M-31808-2024, 11.07.2024)
Declared that all new cases filed after 01.07.2024 must follow BNSS for procedural matters.
Conclusion:
This landmark judgment provides essential guidance during a critical transition in India’s criminal justice system. Its systematic approach to resolving the interplay between old and new criminal laws, while preserving constitutional principles, makes it a significant precedent for similar transitions in the future. The court’s practical approach, balancing legal principles with administrative necessity, provides a valuable framework for implementing major legal reforms in the criminal justice system.
The judgment also demonstrates the judiciary’s role in ensuring smooth implementation of legislative changes while protecting fundamental rights. Its detailed guidelines will likely serve as a reference point for courts across India dealing with similar transitional issues in criminal proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1: Which law applies to offenses committed before July 1, 2024, but reported after? A: IPC applies substantively, but BNSS governs the investigation procedure.
Q2: How are pending investigations handled? A: Investigations pending on July 1, 2024, continue under CrPC until cognizance.
Q3: What procedure applies to new appeals after July 1, 2024? A: All new appeals must follow BNSS procedures, regardless of when the offense occurred.
Q4: How does the judgment protect against retrospective criminalization? A: By maintaining IPC as substantive law for pre-July 2024 offenses while allowing procedural modernization through BNSS.
Q5: What is the status of the UP Police circular on transitional procedures? A: The court upheld the circular as correctly interpreting the legal position on FIR registration and investigation procedures.
This comprehensive analysis underscores the judgment’s significance in facilitating India’s transition to a new criminal justice framework while preserving constitutional principles and ensuring procedural clarity.
Citations
