APHC010112372026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6290/2026 Between: 1. VIJAYA SARADHI HOUSING, PVT. LTD. BADHITHULA SEVA SANGAM, REP. BY ITS. PRESIDENT, CHARKRAVARAM KRISHNAM RAJU, S/O. APPALA RAJU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC SENIOR CITIZEN, R/O.15TH LANE, NALLACHERUVU, GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 003. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 238. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR - 522 004. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ARUNDALPETPONCE STATION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. - 522 002. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: P V S NAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6290 of 2026 Dated 13.03.2026 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not conducting the investigation in FIR No. 189 / 2023 on the file of the Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur town, Guntur District even after the elapse of two years ten months from the date of registration of crime is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principle of natural justice and violative of article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to complete the investigation in FIR No. 189 / 2023 on the file of the Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur Town, Guntur District and file charge sheet / final report as procedure contemplated under section 173 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri. P. V. S. Naveen 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.189 of 2023, dated 30.04.2023 on the file of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur District, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of ‘the IPC.’, by Respondent No.4, 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.6290 of 2026 Dated 13.03.2026 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.4 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.6290 of 2026 Dated 13.03.2026 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.4 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 view of the above, 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: 13.03.2026 PBS 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6290 of 2026 Dated 13.03.2026 229 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6290 of 2026 Date: 13.03.2026 PBS