APHC010101782026 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: 5641/2026 Between: 1. BATHINA DURGA PRASAD, S/O. LATE ANANDH, AGED 23 YEARS, HELPER, RESIDENT OF D.NO. 3/140, SRIRAMAPURAM VILLAGE, SRIRAMAPURAM POST, PAYAKARAPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-531127. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT , SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522237. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 531002. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAYAKARAPETA POLICE STATION, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-531126. 4. MR GOKARAJU SATYANARAYANA, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, OCC MANAGING DIRECTOR, 5. KANUMURI VENKATA LAKSHMIPATHI RAJU, , S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, OCC DIRECTOR, M/S. DECCAN FINE CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KESAVARAM VILLAGE, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. OFFICE AT TUNI MAIN ROAD, WARD NO 17, GOLLAPETA, TUNI, EAST GODAVARI, 533401. 6. GOKARAJU VAMSHI, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, OCC DIRECTOR, M/S. DECCAN FINE CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KESAVARAM VILLAGE, 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.5641 of 2026 Dated 05.03.2026 PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. OFFICE AT TUNI MAIN ROAD, WARD NO 17, GOLLAPETA, TUNI, EAST GODAVARI, 533401. 7. VIVEK VENKATA VASANTHI, W/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, OCC DIRECTOR, M/S. DECCAN FINE CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KESAVARAM VILLAGE, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. OFFICE AT TUNI MAIN ROAD, WARD NO 17, GOLLAPETA, TUNI, EAST GODAVARI, 533401. 8. GANGIREDDY NANI, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, OCC CONTRACTOR, M/S. DECCAN FINE CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, KESAVARAM VILLAGE, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. OFFICE AT TUNI MAIN ROAD, WARD NO 17, GOLLAPETA, TUNI, EAST GODAVARI, 533401. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 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:- “…Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in not completing the investigation and filing a charge sheet against the respondents 4 to 8 and others in FIR No. 231/2023 dated 22.05.2023 of Payakaraopeta Police Station as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India consequentially direct the 2nd Respondent i.e., the Superintendent of Police, Anakapalli to transfer the investigation in FIR No. 231/2023 to a different police 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.5641 of 2026 Dated 05.03.2026 station or to the CBCID and complete the same within a time-bound manner in the interest of justice and to pass such…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri.V. Sai Kumar, 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.231 of 2023, dated 22.05.2023 on the file of Payakaraopeta Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 338 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) by Respondent No.3, 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 after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1149 of 2025 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili. 5. 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: 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.5641 of 2026 Dated 05.03.2026 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. 6. 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 time frame, without considering the stage of the proceedings, may prejudice a fair trial and is liable to be disapproved. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellamanchili to proceed in accordance with law, on the charge sheet filed by the Investigation Officer as early as possible 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.5641 of 2026 Dated 05.03.2026 and submit a compliance report to the Inspector General of Police of the Range concerned immediately. 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 6 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.5641 of 2026 Dated 05.03.2026 232 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.5641 of 2026 Date: 05.03.2026 PBS