APHC010195432026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11000/2026 Between: BASINA VEERA VENKATA SURYANARAYANA, S/O VEERABHADRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION, RESIDENT OF 101 CRYSTAL CASTLE, 102 VASAVI NAGAR, PATAMATA VIJAYAWADA - KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522 237. 2. THE SHO PEDDAPURAM LAW AND ORDER PS, PEDDAPURAM KAKINADA DISTRICT-533 437. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: T RAGHU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.11000 of 2026 Dated 01.05.2026 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 an appropriate writ order direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent non conducting investigation in Crl No 388 of 2024 Peddapuram PS East Godavari District as arbitrary illegal and capricious and violating the provisions of the CrPC/ BNSS and Consequently direct the respondents to adhere the Criminal Procedure and conclude the investigation and file an appropriate report to concern magistrate court as earliest possible as expeditiously and pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr. Tungala Raghu Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that although the complaint lodged by the petitioner was registered as a case against Accused in F.I.R.No.388 of 2024, dated 31.12.2024 on the file of Peddapuram Police Station, Kakinada District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 248, 335, 351(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 175(3) of ‘the BNSS’, by Respondent No.2, he has failed to proceed with the investigation and has not taken any steps to file the charge sheet. 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that the investigation is at progressive stage, charge sheet would be filed after completion of the investigation. 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.11000 of 2026 Dated 01.05.2026 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. 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 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.11000 of 2026 Dated 01.05.2026 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 complete the investigation and take appropriate steps, either by filing a charge sheet or a final report before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, within a reasonable time, in accordance with law, and submit about the results of the investigation to the District Superintendent of Police. In case any of the accused are absconding, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file the charge sheet showing them as absconding. 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: 01.05.2026 RSI 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.11000 of 2026 Dated 01.05.2026 104 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11000 of 2026 Date: 01.05.2026 RSI