The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling in Vijay Sharma & Anr v. State of Rajasthan & Anr, has clarified the position of law insofar as cases transitioning between the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) are concerned and also its interplay with the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The dispute pertaining to inheritance issues commenced with the lodging of a first information report (FIR) dated July 27, 2024 under Sections 420 (Cheating), 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 467 (Forgery), 468 (Forgery for the purpose of cheating), 471 (Using forged documents), and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC. The complaint alleged forgery of a particular will document and consonant unlawful transfer of property in favour of the accused persons. In that regard, the High Court raised three pertinent questions of law to be answered:

(1) Can an FIR be registered under the IPC after the enforcement of the BNS from 01.07.2024 for offences committed before that date?;

(2) Can an FIR for offences committed prior to 01.07.2024 be registered under the BNS after its enforcement?; and,

(3) Which procedural law applies to an FIR registered after 01.07.2024 for offences committed before this date: the CrPC or the BNSS?

Based on these facts, and for our purposes herein, the petitioners placed reliance on a technical averment that after the IPC’s repeal on July 1, 2024, offences could not be registered under the said statute and all FIRs should have been filed under the BNS. However, the same was controverted based on the fact that the alleged offence had taken place prior to July 1, i.e. before coming into force of the BNS and thus the offence was rightly registered under the erstwhile IPC.

A crucial development in the interregnum was the circular from the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, issued on June 28, 2024, whereby it was clearly outlined that offences committed before July 1, 2024 should be prosecuted under the IPC, while procedural aspects after that date would be governed by the BNSS.

Setting the record straight, the bench headed by Justice Arun Monga delivered a comprehensive judgment, addressing the complex transition between the IPC and the BNS in the following terms:

FIR registration under the IPC: The Court held that despite the enforcement of the BNS, offences committed prior to its enactment on July 1, 2024 could still be prosecuted under the IPC. The BNS, under Section 358, contains savings provisions that allow for the application of the IPC to offences committed before its repeal.

Procedural law application: While the IPC applies substantively to offences committed before the BNS’ enforcement, procedural matters (such as FIR registration) post July 1, 2024 would surely be governed by the BNSS. This aligns with Section 531(2)(a) of the BNSS, which mandates that new FIRs and investigations post-enactment must be conducted under the BNSS.

Civil nature of dispute: The Court further held that the dispute, centred on the validity of a will and inheritance, was civil in nature and did not constitute a criminal offence under the IPC. The FIR was deemed an attempt to escalate a family dispute into a criminal case, amounting to an abuse of the legal process. The High Court quashed the FIR, concluding that the case was a civil matter and did not fulfil the criteria for criminal charges. The Court's decision highlighted the importance of distinguishing civil disputes from criminal cases, particularly in family matters.

This judgment is a significant precedent for interpreting the transitional provisions between the IPC and the BNS. It clarifies that the substantive legal field governed by the IPC shall continue to be so for all offences committed prior to their repeal. On the other hand, the procedural aspects governed by BNSS will apply to FIRs and investigations initiated after the new laws come into force, post July 1, 2024.

The ruling also reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be misused to settle civil disputes, ensuring that legal resources are not wasted on frivolous litigation. This judgment is expected to guide future cases during the transitional phase between India’s old and new legal codes.

Ivan is an Advocate-on-Record and Alok K Singh is an advocate practising at the Supreme Court of India