APHC010092952026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 5479/2026 Between: 1. BOGGADI RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, S/O B. RAMACHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, CULTIVATOR, R/O R.T. PALLI VILLAGE, CHINNAKAMPALLI POST, C.K. DINNE MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH . ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT KADAPA, ANDHRA PRADESH. - 516001 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHINTHAKOMMADINNE POLICE STATION (ALSO REFERRED TO AS C.K. DINNE P.S.), KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.516003 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: K VENKATA SUBBAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.5479 of 2026 Dated 05.03.2026 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No.3 / Station House Officer, Chinthakommadinne Police Station, Kadapa District, to forthwith and effectively investigate FIR No.277/2025 dated 10.12.2025 registered under Sections 109,118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, by recording the statements of material eyewitnesses namely B. Obul Reddy and S. Subba Narasimhulu, collecting medical and documentary evidence, and by completing the investigation and filing the final report under Section 193 of BNSS within a period of four weeks or within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, and pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri. K. V. Subbaiah, 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.277 of 2025, dated 10.12.2025 on the file of Chinthakommadinne Police Station, YSR Kadapa District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109, 118(1) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) by Respondent No.3, 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.5479 of 2026 Dated 05.03.2026 4. Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 5. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.3 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.5479 of 2026 Dated 05.03.2026 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 time frame, 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.3 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, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, and submit about the results of the investigation to the District Superintendent of Police. 9. In the result, 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: 05.03.2026 PBS 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.5479 of 2026 Dated 05.03.2026 247 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.5479 of 2026 Date: 05.03.2026 PBS