Provisions Involved: IPC, CrPC, BNS, BNSS, Article 20(1) of the Constitution, Sections 358 BNS and 531 BNSS.
1.ABSTRACT
This case analysis examines Vijay Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., concerning the transition from the IPC–CrPC framework to the BNS–BNSS. The case addresses whether an offence committed before 1 July 2024 can be registered under the IPC after the criminal laws came into force. The analysis focuses on Article 20(1), Section 358 BNS and Section 531 BNSS, and examines the distinction between substantive and procedural criminal law during this transitional period.
2.INTRODUCTION
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the IPC and CrPC from 1 July 2024. This transition raised questions regarding offences committed under the old laws but reported after the new laws came into force. Vijay Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. is significant because the alleged offence occurred in 2021 when the IPC was in force, whereas the FIR was registered on 27 July 2024, after the BNS and BNSS had commenced. The Rajasthan High Court considered the relationship between substantive criminal law and procedural law and examined Article 20(1) of the Constitution along with the repeal-and-savings provision under Section 358 BNS and the transitional provision under Section 531 BNSS.
3.FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioners, Vijay Sharma and Prahalad, were family members involved in a dispute concerning their grandmother Bhagwati Devi’s estate. The complainant, Satish Kumar, was their uncle. The petitioners forged a Will dated 5 October 2021 concerning Bhagwati Devi’s property and, after her death on 3 January 2022, used it to alter revenue records and transfer the property to Vijay Sharma, in conspiracy with revenue officials. On 27 July 2024, Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore, registered FIR No. 0299/2024 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. They argued that the IPC had already been repealed when the FIR was registered and that the allegations did not disclose the ingredients of the offences. They contended that the dispute was essentially civil and related to property and inheritance.
4.ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
1. Whether an FIR could be registered under the IPC after 1 July 2024 for an offence committed before that date?
2. Whether an offence committed before 1 July 2024 could be registered under the BNS after its enforcement?
3. What procedural law would govern an FIR registered after 1 July 2024 concerning an offence committed before that date?
5.ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
5.1 Petitioners
The petitioners relied upon Article 20(1) of the Constitution and argued that criminal liability must be determined according to the law applicable when the alleged act was committed. They relied upon Section 358 BNS and challenged the registration of an FIR under the repealed IPC. They argued that the FIR did not disclose the ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery or conspiracy. According to them, the dispute was a family property and inheritance dispute and therefore civil in nature.
Respondents
The respondents relied upon the repeal-and-savings provision in Section 358 BNS and argued that repeal of the IPC did not extinguish liability for offences committed while the IPC was in force. They relied on the Rajasthan DGP’s circular and contended that substantive offences remained governed by the IPC, while investigation and procedure for a post-1 July 2024 FIR would be governed by the BNSS.
6.JUDGEMENT AND RATIO DECIDENDI
The High Court examined the transitional issue and the allegations in the FIR.
6.1 Article 20(1)
Article 20(1) protects a person from conviction under a penal law that was not in force when the alleged act was committed. Since the alleged forgery occurred in 2021, the IPC was the applicable substantive criminal law. The commencement of the BNS could not retrospectively convert conduct committed in 2021 into an offence under the BNS.
6.2 Section 358 BNS
The Court examined Section 358 BNS, which repeals the IPC while preserving legal consequences arising from offences committed under it. The Court rejected the argument that repeal of the IPC extinguished criminal liability for offences committed before 1 July 2024. The saving provision ensures continuity of liability for acts committed when the IPC was in force. The Court read sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 358 harmoniously so that substantive liability was not defeated by repeal.
6.3 Substantive and Procedural Law
The Court distinguished substantive and procedural law. An offence committed before 1 July 2024 remains governed by the IPC, while a post-1 July 2024 FIR may be investigated under the BNSS, subject to Section 531 and its savings. Thus, repeal of the IPC does not prevent registration of an FIR under the IPC for a pre-1 July 2024 offence.
6.4 Merits of the FIR
The Court then examined whether the FIR disclosed the ingredients of the alleged offences. The Court found that the allegations were insufficient to establish offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, including dishonest inducement, entrustment, and specific facts supporting forgery and conspiracy. The Court noted the property-related nature of the dispute and that criminal proceedings should not substitute civil remedies where criminal ingredients are absent.
6.5 Final Decision and Ratio
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed FIR No. 0299/2024 and consequential proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that an offence committed before 1 July 2024 remains substantively governed by the IPC despite repeal. An FIR may therefore be registered under the IPC after that date, while investigation and procedure may be governed by the BNSS, subject to statutory savings.
7.CRITICAL ANALYSIS
The judgment addresses an important transitional issue arising from replacement of the IPC and CrPC by the BNS and BNSS. The Court recognized that repeal does not erase legal consequences for conduct criminal when committed, while the BNS cannot retrospectively impose substantive liability on conduct committed under the IPC. This accords with Article 20(1). The interpretation of Section 358 BNS is significant because the Court read its saving provisions harmoniously, ensuring continuity of liability without retrospective application of the BNS. The distinction between substantive and procedural law is central. Substantive law determines whether conduct constitutes an offence, while procedural law governs investigation and prosecution. Thus, an IPC offence may be investigated under the BNSS, creating a transitional framework. This framework may create practical difficulties because authorities must determine which substantive and procedural provisions apply at each stage. Clear judicial guidance is therefore important. The Court’s examination of the FIR on merits was also important. Applicability of the IPC does not mean every prosecution must continue; the alleged offences must still satisfy their basic ingredients. The judgment reinforces that criminal law should not settle essentially civil disputes involving property, inheritance or title. Allegations of cheating, breach of trust or forgery must contain sufficient facts to satisfy statutory requirements. The reasoning in Vijay Sharma must be viewed as part of the developing jurisprudence on the transition from the old criminal laws to the new codes. The judgment considered the reasoning in Deepu & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2024 SCC Online All 3120 and the earlier position in Krishan Joshi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2024 SCC Online Raj 2042. Judicial clarification may be required regarding the application of transitional provisions at later stages of criminal proceedings.
8.SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT
The judgment is significant because:
The date of commission determines the applicable substantive criminal law.
Repeal of the IPC does not extinguish liability for offences committed while it was in force.
It distinguishes substantive criminal law from procedural law during the transition.
It highlights the importance of Section 358 BNS.
An FIR must disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.
It highlights the need for consistent judicial guidance during implementation of the new codes.
9.CONCLUSION
Vijay Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. provides guidance on the transition from the IPC–CrPC framework to BNS–BNSS. An offence committed before 1 July 2024 remains substantively governed by the IPC even if the FIR is registered after the BNS comes into force. The BNSS may govern investigation and procedure, subject to its saving provisions. The decision balances continuity of criminal liability with protection against retrospective penal laws. It also shows that transitional questions remain subject to ordinary criminal-law requirements, including disclosure of the alleged offences’ ingredients. By quashing the FIR on merits, the Court reaffirmed that a primarily civil property dispute cannot be converted into criminal litigation without sufficient factual and legal foundation. The judgment illustrates how courts reconcile repeal, saving clauses, constitutional safeguards and procedural transition while ensuring legal certainty during implementation of the new codes.
10. REFERENCES
(No date a) Article 20 in constitution of india. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/655638/ (Accessed: 22 September 2026).
(No date a) The bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, BNS – section 358 - lawfyi.io. Available at: https://lawfyi.io/the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023-bns-section-358/ (Accessed: 22 September 2026).
(No date a) Section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 – BNS Bare Act. Available at: https://www.bnsbareact.org/bnss-bare-act/section-531-of-the-bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-bnss-2023 (Accessed: 22 September 2026).
(No date a) 8 all. deepu & ors. vs. state of Up & Ors. 903. Available at: https://www2.allahabadhighcourt.in/files_ilr/english/splitted/3012287%202024_06-08-2024_english.pdf (Accessed: 22 September 2026).
(No date a) Krishan Joshi vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:27741) on 9 July, 2024. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/88461568/ (Accessed: 22 September 2026).
About Author:-
Ms. Yashvi Gangar , B.A. LL.B. – Fourth Year ,KES Shri Jayantilal H. Patel Law College, Mumbai