Disposed

Ankita Pradhan v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026WPCR/540/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a WPCR petition, the petitioner sought directions to include private respondents in an FIR and consider electronic evidence regarding social boycott after inter-caste marriage. The Court declined to issue specific directions as the investigation was nascent, directing the IO to act independently.

What did the court decide?

Court declined to issue specific directions to include respondents in FIR or consider electronic records; directed Investigating Officer to conclude investigation independently.

Ankita Pradhan Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010356172026

¶3

2026:CGHC:40163-DB NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 540 of 2026

¶5

1 - Ankita Pradhan D/o Shri Ramdas Pradhan, W/o Shri Suyash Rawat Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Toshgaon, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.), Presently Resided At- 280, Type-03, Hitech Colony, Bacheli, Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.)

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

Digitally ABHIGYA signed by SAXENA ABHIGYA SAXENA

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, New Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, DistrictRaipur (C.G.)

¶10

2 - The Director General Of Police Department Of Home Affairs, Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

3 - The Superintendent Of Police Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶12

4 - The Station House Officer Police Station- Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶13

5 - Santosh Sahu S/o Shri Puran Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Baigandih, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶14

6 - Trilochan Bhoi S/o Shri Hemsagar Bhoi Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Hasekata, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶15

7 - Hajarulal Pradhan S/o Shri Ishwar Pradhan Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Jadamuda, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶16

¶17

8 - Dilip Sahu S/o Shri Tulsiram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Udela, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶18

9 - Chandrakant Bhoi S/o Shri Nakul Prasad Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Thakurpali, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶19

10 - Navin Sahu S/o Shri Chaturbhuj Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Rasoda, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶20

11 - Suvardhan Pradhan S/o Jogendra Pradhan Aged About 52 Years R/o Ranisager, P.S. Basna, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶21

12 - Vijay Samal S/o Shri Sundarlal Sayal Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Saraipatera, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶22

13 - Radheshyam Sahu S/o Shri Rupdhar Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Barbaspur, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶23

... Respondent(s)

¶24

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saumya Rai, Dy. G.A.

¶25

(Division Bench)

¶26

(Hon’ble Smt. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, Hon’ble Shri Justice Sudhir Kumar) Order on Board

¶27

15.09.2026

¶28

The petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the police authorities/Police Station Basna to take cognizance of the complaint made by the petitioner, alleging that certain influential persons of the society have prohibited the petitioner from enjoying the social status and privileges of the community on account of the petitioner having solemnized an inter-caste marriage on

¶29

¶30

02.03.2026. The factum of such marriage is evidenced by the marriage certificate dated 08.04.2026, annexed as Annexure P-1.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already produced certain electronic records before the Investigating Officer and, therefore, the same ought to be taken into consideration during the course of investigation. He further submits that the authorities concerned have not included the names of the private respondents in FIR No. 393/2026 registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner on 04.08.2026. He, therefore, prays that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent authorities to include the names of the private respondents in the FIR and also to take into consideration the electronic records produced by the petitioner.

¶32

Learned State counsel submits that the investigation is at a nascent stage and the Investigating Officer is conducting the investigation in accordance with law. He further submits that the allegations made by the petitioner and the electronic record produced by him are required to be examined during the course of investigation. Therefore, at this stage, no specific direction is required to be issued in the present WPCR.

¶33

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition.

¶34

¶35

perusal of the record, it appears that FIR No. 393/2026 (Annexure P/2) has been registered at Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against Bhojraj Pradhan, Praveen Bhoi, Dharnidhar Sahu, Sanjay Bhoi and others, however, this FIR has not been registered against all the individuals involved in these offenses.

¶36

Considering the fact that the investigation is already in progress, and without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to issue any specific direction at this juncture. However, it is expected that the Investigating Officer shall conduct the investigation independently and consider the entire evidence and material collected during the course of investigation and conclude the same in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court. It is made clear that this Court has not examined or expressed any opinion on the factual or merits of the case, and the factual matrix has been referred to only to the limited extent necessary for deciding the present petition.

¶37

With this observation(s) and direction(s) this petition is disposed of.

¶38

Sd/Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) (Sudhir Kumar) Judge Judge

¶39

Saxena

Ankita Pradhan v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankita Pradhan v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases