Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly in the nature of mandamus, for a fair, impartial and proper investigation in connection with Crime No. 08/2026 registered at Police Station Jainagar, District Surajpur, and for inclusion of private respondents No. 6 to 12 as accused persons in the said crime, alleging that despite being eye-witness to the incident and having made representations to the concerned authorities, no effective steps have been taken by the respondent authorities and the investigation conducted so far is biased and suffers from serious irregularities.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

          "10.1 It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

          10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/order/direction in nature of mandamus whereby to direct to the Respondent Authorities No. 4 and 5 to make the private Respondents No. 6 to 12 as accused in the offence in connection with Crime No. 8/2026 registered by the Police of Police Station - Jainagar and further be pleased to direct to the concerned police to record the statement of the witnesses in writing as well as in videography and submit the charge-sheet after proper and unbiased investigation in the present case.

          10.3 That, any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition, may also please be granted to the petitioner."

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that on 03.01.2026 between 12:00 PM and 1:00 PM, her husband, namely Ramlallu Agariya, was brutally assaulted at their residence in village Dwarikanagar, District Surajpur, by a group of persons including Temsai, Genda Bihari and private respondents No. 6 to 12, who allegedly formed an unlawful assembly armed with lathis and other weapons. It is alleged that the accused persons launched a premeditated and coordinated attack, causing grievous injuries to the deceased. The petitioner, being an eye-witness, along with other witnesses including the victim's brother Anil, witnessed the entire incident. It is further alleged that after the initial assault, two of the accused, namely Daljeet and Thakur Singh, again assaulted the injured victim and issued threats. The victim was thereafter taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead due to the injuries sustained in the incident.

          ******* It is further the case of the petitioner that despite the involvement of multiple accused persons, the police registered Crime No. 08/2026 at Police Station Jainagar only against two persons, namely Temsai and Genda Bihari, allegedly suppressing the role of the remaining accused persons. The petitioner has alleged serious irregularities and bias in the investigation, including manipulation of witness statements, failure to seize proper weapons and material evidence, and fraudulent preparation of the FIR in the name of the complainant Anil. The petitioner submitted representations dated 19.01.2026 and 02.02.2026 before the concerned authorities seeking fair investigation and inclusion of all accused persons, however, no effective action has been taken till date, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased and an eye-witness to the incident in question. It is contended that though the First Information Report has been lodged by the brother of the deceased against only two persons, namely Temsai Paikra and Gend Bihari Paikra, the petitioner has consistently disclosed the active participation of private respondents No. 6 to 12 in the commission of the offence. Despite such specific allegations and disclosure of their involvement, the concerned police authorities have failed to array the said private respondents as accused persons and are proceeding only against the aforesaid two named accused, thereby conducting a selective and biased investigation.

          ******* It is further submitted that the petitioner has already made representations before the Inspector General of Police and the Superintendent of Police, bringing to their notice the involvement of private respondents No. 6 to 12 and seeking their inclusion as accused in the case; however, no effective action has been taken till date. It is thus argued that the inaction on the part of the police authorities has resulted in denial of a fair and proper investigation, warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

5. Learned State counsel would submit that the First Information Report in the present case has already been registered and the matter is presently under investigation by the competent police authorities. It is contended that during the course of investigation, statements of witnesses are being recorded and all relevant aspects, including the role of each person alleged to be involved in the incident, are being duly examined in accordance with law. It is further submitted that at this stage, the investigation is at a nascent stage and no final conclusion has yet been arrived at.

          ******* It is further submitted that it is within the domain of the investigating agency to identify and array the accused persons on the basis of evidence collected during investigation, and no direction can be issued by this Hon'ble Court to include any particular person as an accused. Learned State counsel submits that the investigating agency shall conduct a fair and impartial investigation and, upon completion thereof, submit the appropriate police report in accordance with law. Therefore, no interference is called for at this stage.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the First Information Report in the present case has already been registered and the investigation is admittedly in progress. The grievance of the petitioner primarily relates to non-inclusion of private respondents No. 6 to 12 as accused persons and alleged bias in the investigation.

8. It is a settled position of law that the scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters relating to investigation is limited. The investigation of a criminal case squarely falls within the domain of the investigating agency, and it is for the police authorities to collect evidence and determine the complicity of persons involved in the alleged offence. At this stage, when the investigation is still at a nascent stage, no direction can be issued by this Court to array particular individuals as accused.

9. The allegations made by the petitioner regarding improper investigation, non-recording of statements, or exclusion of certain persons can very well be looked into by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. In case the petitioner is still aggrieved, appropriate remedy lies under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including approaching the competent Magistrate.

10. This Court also takes note of the submission of the learned State counsel that the investigating agency is proceeding in accordance with law and shall conduct a fair and impartial investigation. In absence of any exceptional circumstances or material to demonstrate deliberate inaction or mala fide on the part of the investigating agency at this stage, no case for interference is made out.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, it is observed that the investigating agency shall proceed with the investigation strictly in accordance with law and shall not be influenced by any observation made herein. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy as available under law, if so advised.