APHC010110692026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NOs: 6243, 6250 & 6262/2026 WRIT PETITION NO: 6243/2026 Between: 1. NAVULURI SUSHEELA DEVI, (DIED) 2. J.V. NAGA PADMAJA, W/0 J. RAMACHADRARA MURTHY AGED AT 56YEARS, R/O 24-1-29 GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. NAVULURI RAVI PRASAD, S/O LATE VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY, AGED AT 55YEARS, R/O 24-1-29 GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. (PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE L.RS OF PETITIONER NO.1) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH-522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ONGOLE TOWN POLICE STATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523002 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ONGOLE I TOWN POLICE STATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523002. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.6243, 6250 & 6262 of 2026 Dated 06.03.2026 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): SUDHESHNA YAKKALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO: 6250/2026 Between: 1. NAVULURI SUSHEELA DEVI, (DIED) 2. J.V. NAGA PADMAJA, W/0 J. RAMACHADRARA MURTHY AGED AT 56YEARS, R/O 24-1-29 GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. NAVULURI RAVI PRASAD,, S/O LATE VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY, AGED AT 55YEARS, R/O 24-1-29 GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. (PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE L. R S OF PETITIONER NO.1) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH-522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ONGOLE TOWN POLICE STATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523002 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ONGOLE I TOWN POLICE STATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523002. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): SUDHESHNA YAKKALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.6243, 6250 & 6262 of 2026 Dated 06.03.2026 WRIT PETITION NO: 6262/2026 Between: 1. NAVULURI SUSHEELA DEVI, (DIED) 2. J.V. NAGA PADMAJA, W/O J. RAMACHADRARA MURTHY AGED AT 56YEARS, R/O 24-1-29 GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. NAVULURI RAVI PRASAD,, S/O LATE VENKATA RAMANA MURTHY, AGED AT 55YEARS, R/O 24-1-29 GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. (PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE L. R'S OF PETITIONER NO.1) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH-522238 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ONGOLE TOWN POLICE STATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523002 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ONGOLE I TOWN POLICE STATION ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 523002. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): SUDHESHNA YAKKALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.6243, 6250 & 6262 of 2026 Dated 06.03.2026 COMMON ORDER: The Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the 3rd Respondent in completing the investigation and filing the charge sheet after recording the statements of witnesses in Cr.No.808/2023, dt.02- 11- 2023 of Ongole taluk Town Police Station, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to complete the investigation and file charge sheet in Cr.No.808/2023, dt.02-11-2023 Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District, of within a stipulated time frame and pass…” “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the 3rd Respondent in completing the investigation and filing the charge sheet after recording the statements of witnesses in Cr.No.416/2023, dt.06- 11- 2023 of Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to complete the investigation and file charge sheet in Cr.No.416/2023, dt.06-11-2023 Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District, of within a stipulated time frame and pass…” “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of the 3rd Respondent in completing the investigation and filing the charge sheet after recording the statements of witnesses in Cr.No.326/2023, dt.08- 10- 2023 of Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District, as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to complete the investigation and file charge sheet in Cr.No.326/2023, dt.08-10-2023 Ongole I Town Police Station, Prakasam District, of within a stipulated time frame and pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Smt.Y. Sudheshna, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that although the complaint lodged by the petitioner was registered as a 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.6243, 6250 & 6262 of 2026 Dated 06.03.2026 case against Accused in F.I.R.Nos.808, 416 and 326 of 2023, dated 02.11.2023, 06.11.2023 and 08.10.2023 respectively on the file of Ongole I Town Urban Police Station, Prakasam District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 464, 467, 468, 420 and 471 r/w 34 of ‘the IPC’ 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, requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 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: 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. 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 6 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.6243, 6250 & 6262 of 2026 Dated 06.03.2026 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, 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. 8. With the above observations and directions, these Writ Petitions are 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: 06.03.2026 PBS 7 Dr. YLR, J W.P.Nos.6243, 6250 & 6262 of 2026 Dated 06.03.2026 214 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.6243, 6250 & 6262 of 2026 Date: 06.03.2026 PBS