APHC010024042026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1841/2026 Between: P N PRABHAKAR REDDY, S/O. LATE NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 54 YRS, R/O. D.NO.1-66, MUDARAMDODDI ROAD, VENKATAGIRIKOTA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P 517501 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P.517501 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANDRAGIRI POLICE STATION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P.517101 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANDRAGIRI POLICE STATION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P.517101 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: B.V.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.1841 of 2026 Dated 17.03.2026 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents especially the Respondents No 4 and 5 in completing the investigation and filing charge sheet under Section 173 Cr P C in FIR No 199 of 2025 dated 03 08 2025 on the file of Respondent No 5 is illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and also violation of Articles 14 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and consequently direct the Respondents No 4 and 5 to complete the investigation expeditiously and thereby file charge sheet in FIR No 199 of 2025 dated 03 08 2025 on the file of 5th respondent and pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr.B.V.Durga 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.199 of 2025, dated 03.08.2025 on the file of Chandragiri Urban Police Station, Tirupati District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 106(1) and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), by Respondent No.5, he has failed to proceed with the investigation and has not taken any steps to file the charge sheet. 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.1841 of 2026 Dated 17.03.2026 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. 5. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.5 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 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.1841 of 2026 Dated 17.03.2026 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.5 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. 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: 17.03.2026 RSI 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.1841 of 2026 Dated 17.03.2026 79 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1841 of 2026 Date: 17.03.2026 RSI