Victim Cannot Be Denied Investigation Documents Under BNSS Merely For Wrongly Citing CrPC Provision: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that a victim in a criminal proceeding is entitled to obtain copies of documents contemplated under Section 230 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), observing that the mere mention of a wrong statutory provision in an application cannot defeat a substantive legal right.
Justice Dr Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee set aside an order of the Judicial Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta, which had rejected an application by a victim seeking legible copies of documents forming part of the investigation material in connection with G.R. No. 798 of 2022.
The Court directed the trial court to hand over the copies of the documents covered by Section 230 of the BNSS to the victim within 10 days of communication of its order.
The petitioner, Sinjini Mukherjee, was the de facto complainant/victim in the case. She had challenged the Magistrate's February 6, 2025 order refusing her request for copies of documents on the ground that the charge-sheet had been filed and the trial had commenced when the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was in force.
The Magistrate had reasoned that Section 207 CrPC and the Criminal Rules and Orders did not contemplate supplying such documents to a victim.
Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that although her application dated July 15, 2024 mistakenly referred to Section 207 CrPC, it was in substance an application under Section 230 BNSS.
Section 230 BNSS provides for furnishing, free of cost, copies of specified documents to the accused and also to the victim where the victim is represented by an advocate.
The State opposed the plea, arguing that the application expressly invoked Section 207 CrPC and that the provision did not create any right in favour of the victim to receive the documents sought.
BNSS Applied To Application Filed After July 1, 2024
The High Court rejected the State's contention and examined the repeal and savings provision under Section 531 BNSS.
The Court noted that the BNSS came into force on July 1, 2024, repealing the CrPC. While Section 531(2)(a) saves proceedings that were already pending immediately before the BNSS came into force, the provision does not save an application instituted after that date.
In the present case, the application seeking copies was filed on July 15, 2024.
Therefore, the Court held that Section 230 BNSS was applicable to the application.
"Therefore, any application filed on 01.07.2024 or thereafter shall be governed by the provisions of BNSS 2023 for the reason that by that date, the provision of Cr.P.C. 1973 stands repealed," the Court observed.
The Court consequently held that the Magistrate was duty-bound to furnish the documents contemplated under Section 230 to the victim.
Wrong Mention Of Section Cannot Defeat Legal Remedy
The Court also rejected the argument that the reference to Section 207 CrPC in the application was fatal.
It observed that a litigant is required to place the relevant facts before the court, while it is the court's responsibility to apply the correct law.
"Prayer always has to be considered in substance and not merely in its form," the Court said.
The Court added that merely because a litigant has referred to an incorrect statute or section, the court is not relieved of its obligation to determine the provision actually applicable to the relief sought.
"it is the business of the court to know the law," the Court remarked, adding that a proper recitation of the applicable statutory provision is not a prerequisite for a victim to obtain a legal remedy.
The Court further noted that Rule 252 of the Calcutta High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985 also permits parties to criminal proceedings to obtain certified and uncertified copies of inquiry materials, including police papers that may be used as evidence at trial or inquiry and the final police report.
The High Court also considered the petitioner's contention that access to the investigation documents was necessary for her to ascertain whether the investigation had been properly conducted and, if necessary, take appropriate steps including filing a protest petition.
Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr., reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321, the Court reiterated that a victim has a right to participate effectively in criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court had held that wherever a victim comes forward to participate in criminal proceedings, he or she must be afforded an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing.
The High Court observed that a victim cannot be compelled to wait until the commencement of trial to assert the right to participate in the proceedings.
"He/she has legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence and such a victim has unbridled participatory right from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceeding," the Court said, referring to the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Sangita Ghosh (Sengupta) v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 131.
Holding that the Magistrate had failed to consider the applicable provisions of the BNSS, the Court allowed CRR 1162 of 2025 and set aside the February 6, 2025 order.
The trial court was directed to provide the documents mentioned in Section 230 BNSS to the victim/petitioner within 10 days from the date of communication of the High Court's order.
Case: Sinjini Mukherjee v. State of West Bengal
Case No.: CRR 1162 of 2025