APHC010192062025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 9688/2025 Between: 1. VELAGA SRIRAMA MURTHY, S/O RAMA RAO, AGE 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KOMATIGUNTA VILLAGE, GOPLAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522502. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJAHMUNDRY. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GOLAPAURAM POLICE STATION, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. SRI MATANGIMATHA AGROS PRIVATE LIMITED, REP.BY ITS MANGING DIRECTOR, KOMATIGUNTA VILLAGE, GOPLALAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the arbitrary action of the 4TH Respondent, in not taking any further action against the accused in crime No. 15/2025, dt. 13.01.2025 including filing of the Chargesheet which is illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently, to direct the 4TH Respondent to conduct investigation and file Chargesheet in Crime No. 15/2025, dt. 13.01.2025…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that even though a case was registered on 13.01.2025 vide Cr.No.15 of 2025 of Gopalapuram Police Station, East Godavari District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C.’), Respondent No. 4 has not conducted the investigation in proper lines and has not culminated the case in appropriate proceedings. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the Investigating Officer has been effectively conducting the investigation and has addressed communications to the respective banks to ascertain whether the offences of forgery and cheating were committed. 3 5. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.4 is duty bound to conduct a thorough, fair, impartial and effective investigation and conduct the investigation to the logical end as per the procedure. 6. In this regard, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Shankar v. State1, wherein at paragraph Nos. 15 and 20, it is held as under: 15. If the high court directs, at a stage prior to conclusion of investigation, that a charge-sheet has invariably to be fled upon closure of investigation in a particular case irrespective of what the materials are which have been collected during investigation and without allowing the investigating officer to form his own opinion as regards the next course of action, that would take away the discretion of such officer and he would be left with no other option but to proceed in the direction as required by the high court under pain of threat of contempt. Other than very extreme cases, the high courts ought to exercise restraint and not issue such directions which foreclose the discretion of the executive. 20. However, if the high court proceeds to make a direction that charge-sheets should be fled upon conclusion of investigation or that a trial should be concluded within a particular time-frame, without even attempting to ascertain the stage the trial has reached, the consequence of such an order could be far-reaching. The concept of a fair trial could be rendered a casualty. Directions of the nature made by the learned Judge amounts to improper exercise of writ jurisdiction and such an approach cannot but be disapproved by us. 7. Therefore, in A. Shankar supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court should not, at the stage of investigation, direct the filing of a charge-sheet, as it would curtail the discretion of the Investigating Officer and amount to an improper exercise of jurisdiction. It was further held that issuing directions to file charge-sheets or to conclude trials within a fixed timeframe, without considering the stage of the proceedings, may prejudice a fair trial and is liable to be disapproved. 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 4 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Respondent No. 4 is directed to expedite the process of investigation and file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 9. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 06.04.2026 PRA 5 50 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9688 of 2025 Date: 06.04.2026 PRA