APHC010210722026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11762/2026 Between: 1. DASARI UMADEVI,, W/O RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RIO CAIINPETA, NIDUBROLU, PONNUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARYTO HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PONNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASU L Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not completing the investigation in Crime No 90 of 2024 which is illegal improper arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India Consequently direct the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation in Crime No 90 of 2024 and submit charge sheet as per the provisions of BNSS…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri L.Srinivasu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the present Writ Petition is instituted to assail the manifestly arbitrary, improper and illegal inaction of the Respondent No.2, who, despite registration of Crime No.90 of 2024 under grave penal provisions including Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 420 read with 34 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ has failed to discharge the statutory obligation of completing investigation and filing a charge sheet within a reasonable period as mandated under Sections 175 and 176 of ‘the BNSS’/ Sections 156 and 157 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ The Petitioner, being the lawful heir of her deceased husband, has been subjected to fraudulent machinations and dispossession by her brother‑in‑law and his sons, who, by fabricating documents and procuring a false family certificate, attempted to usurp her properties. Despite repeated representations and production of relevant material, the Investigating Officer, owing to the political influence of the accused, has deliberately abstained from conducting the investigation, thereby 3 enabling continued harassment and threats to the Petitioner. Such culpable inaction not only defeats the ends of justice but also constitutes a gross violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, the Petitioner, having no efficacious alternative remedy, invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, and consequently directing the Respondent No.2 to forthwith complete the investigation in Crime No.90 of 2024 and submit the charge sheet in accordance with law. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the allegations of deliberate inaction are unfounded, as the Respondent No.2 has in fact taken up investigation in Crime No.90 of 2024 and is proceeding in accordance with the statutory framework under ‘the BNSS’. It is contended that the process necessarily involves collection of documentary evidence, verification of records, and examination of witnesses, which owing to the complexity of the allegations has occasioned some delay, but cannot be construed as arbitrary or mala fide. The Respondent Police are vested with lawful discretion in the manner and pace of investigation. 5. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.2 is duty bound to conduct a thorough, fair, impartial and effective investigation and conduct the investigation to the logical end as per the procedure. 4 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. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Respondent No. 2 is directed to expedite the process of investigation and file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 5 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: 30.04.2026 VTS