Registration of FIR does not mandate automatic arrest or entitle parties to dictate the investigation's manner.

The Petitioner, an alleged victim of rape, filed an FIR (No. 31/2026) on January 23, 2026, at Police Station Sakti against Respondent No. 6 under Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The Petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that despite the registration of the FIR, there was no substantial progress in the investigation and the accused remained at large.

She further alleged that the accused was intimidating her and her family to withdraw the complaint, and despite reporting these threats to the Superintendent of Police and the Inspector General of Police in February 2026, no action was taken.

Consequently, she sought a Writ of Mandamus for the immediate arrest of the accused, police protection, and court-monitored investigation.

1. Whether the Court can issue a direction to the police authorities to immediately arrest an accused following the registration of an FIR?

2. Whether the High Court should interfere in or monitor the ongoing investigation through a Writ of Mandamus at this stage?

Sections 64(2)(m) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, concerning the offenses of rape and criminal intimidation.

While the police are legally mandated to investigate a registered FIR, such registration does not make the arrest of an accused mandatory or automatic.

Arrest is a coercive step requiring justification and judicial interference in the manner of investigation is restricted to avoid prejudicing the independence of the investigating agency.

The Court observed that the investigation was already underway following the registration of the FIR.

It reasoned that issuing specific directions on how an investigation should be conducted would compromise the fairness and independence of the police authorities.

The Bench clarified that although the police must perform statutory duties such as visiting the crime scene and recording statements, an arrest is not a mandatory consequence of an FIR.

The Court noted that allegations of sexual abuse carry significant social aspersions, necessitating that any coercive action like arrest be carefully justified rather than being a reflex to an accusation.

Since the matter was still at the investigative stage, the Court found no evidence of institutional apathy that would warrant the extraordinary remedy of a continuing mandamus.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there were no sufficient grounds to entertain the reliefs claimed.

The prayers for police protection and court monitoring were also declined, as the Court found no reason to interfere with the ongoing investigation at this stage.