No specific directions warranted during ongoing investigation; the Investigating Officer must independently assess all evidence according to law.

The petitioner alleged that influential members of her community had prohibited her from enjoying the social status and privileges of the community because she had solemnized an inter-caste marriage on 02.03.2026, evidenced by a marriage certificate dated 08.04.2026.

Pursuant to her complaint dated 04.08.2026, FIR No. 393/2026 was registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, for offences under Sections 308(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioner contended that the private respondents’ names had not been included in the FIR and that electronic records submitted to the Investigating Officer had not been properly considered.

The State submitted that the investigation was at an initial stage and was being conducted in accordance with law.

Whether the High Court should direct the police authorities to include the private respondents’ names in the FIR during the pendency of the investigation.

Whether the Investigating Officer should be specifically directed to consider the electronic records and other material produced by the petitioner during investigation.

Whether any further specific direction was warranted when investigation pursuant to FIR No. 393/2026 was already in progress.

The Court applied Sections 308(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which formed the penal basis of the registered FIR.

While investigation is pending, the Investigating Officer must independently examine the complaint, electronic records, and all other evidence or material collected, determine the involvement of persons in accordance with law, and complete the investigation without being influenced by judicial observations on the merits.

The Court noted that the FIR had already been registered for the alleged offences, although it did not name all persons allegedly involved.

Since the investigation was at a nascent stage, the Court considered it inappropriate to direct the police at that stage to add particular individuals as accused or to dictate the manner in which the electronic records should be evaluated.

Instead, it required the Investigating Officer to independently consider the petitioner’s allegations, electronic records, and the entire material collected during investigation in accordance with law.

The Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the factual merits of the allegations.

The petition was disposed of with the expectation that the Investigating Officer would conduct an independent and lawful investigation, consider all relevant evidence and material, and conclude the investigation in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation in the order.