Court declines further directions during ongoing investigation, while requiring the Investigating Officer to act fairly, impartially, and independently.

The petitioner alleged that she was the legally wedded wife of respondent no. 4, with whom she married on 10 November 2018.

She claimed that respondent no. 4 concealed his earlier marriage and thereafter subjected her to physical and domestic violence, including an assault causing a fracture to her arm.

The petitioner further alleged that respondent nos. 4 to 6, along with another person, entered her residence and assaulted her after learning of her complaints to the authorities.

She submitted complaints to the police and representations to the Senior Superintendent of Police, but alleged that no effective action was taken.

She consequently approached the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, pursuant to which an FIR was registered and investigation commenced.

The petitioner also alleged that the local police pressured her to enter into a compromise.

During the writ proceedings, the State informed the Court that investigation was underway and that the petitioner’s statement had been recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS on 23 August 2026.

The Court applied Section 175(3) of the BNSS, under which a Magistrate may direct registration of an FIR and investigation where the police have failed to act on information relating to a cognizable offence.

It also referred to Section 180 of the BNSS concerning the recording of the petitioner’s statement during investigation.

The Court applied the general principle that an investigation must be conducted fairly, impartially, independently, and strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by extraneous considerations.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s principal grievance—inaction by the police and failure to commence a proper criminal investigation—had been addressed through the Magistrate’s order directing registration of the FIR and investigation.

Since the investigation was already underway and the petitioner’s statement had been recorded, the Court found no justification for issuing further directions at that stage.

Nevertheless, having regard to the petitioner’s allegations of pressure to compromise, the Court expressly required the Investigating Officer to conduct the investigation fairly, impartially, independently, and without extraneous influence.

The Court also preserved the petitioner’s liberty to report any subsequent incident or additional grievance, leaving it to the Investigating Officer to take action in accordance with law.

It directed, by way of an expectation and judicial observation, that the Investigating Officer conduct the investigation fairly, impartially, independently, and in accordance with law.

The petitioner was granted liberty to place any subsequent incident or additional grievance before the Investigating Officer, who was directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, along with any pending applications.