APHC010118832026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6685/2026 Between: 1. CHINTALA PRAMEELA, W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO , AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O. 3-159-1, ITHAVARAM VILLAGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 521185 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NTR COMMISSIONERATE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 520001 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NANDIGAMA SUB- DIVISION, NANDIGAMA. 521185 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NANDIGAMA POLICE STATION, NTR DISTRICT. 521185 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: VELADI SAI SRI HARSHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6685 of 2026 Dated 12.03.2026 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the delay and inaction on the part of Respondent No. 4 in completing the investigation in FIR No.545/2025 on the file of the 4th Respondent police station by recovering the gold ornaments as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to conduct investigation in FIR No.545/2025 on the file of the 4th Respondent police station by recovering the gold ornaments as mentioned in the FIR No.545/2025 and file charge sheet forthwith before the court concerned in accordance with Law in the interest of justice…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri V. Sai Sri Harsha, 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.545 of 2025, dated 07.12.2025, on the file of Nandigama Police Station, NTR District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447, and 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C.,’), Respondent No.4 has failed to carry out 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 the investigation is at a progressive stage, and that he has alerted the informants and receivers in this case and flashed a radio 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6685 of 2026 Dated 12.03.2026 message to all Station House Officers, requesting them to make enquiries within their respective jurisdictions and to pass on any useful information. The charge sheet will be filed after completion of the investigation. 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 Investigating Officer and amount to an improper exercise of jurisdiction. It was further held that issuing 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6685 of 2026 Dated 12.03.2026 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.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, within a reasonable time, in accordance with law, and submit about the results of the investigation to the Commissioner 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: 12.03.2026 PBS 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6685 of 2026 Dated 12.03.2026 286 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.6685 of 2026 Date: 12.03.2026 PBS