APHC010125762026 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: 6947/2026 Between: 1. SUNNAMPUDI NAGA RAJA KUMARA ALIAS NAGA BABU, S/O VEERA VEERA PRAKASH RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC- COOLIE. R/O DOOR.NO.9-147, NEAR MOGADARAMMA TEMPLE NIZAMPATNAM, NIZAMPATNAM MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT - 522 314. ...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 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 314. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NIZAMPATNAM POLICE STATION, NIZAMPATNAM, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 314. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: KRANTHI KUMAR PASUMARTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR HOME 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6947 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not conducting investigation in FIR No.34 / 2025 dated 18-06-2025 Punishable under sections 118(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS on the file of the Nizampatnam Police Station 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 3rd respondent to conduct the investigation and file charge sheet/final report in connection with FIR No. 34 / 2025 dated 18-06- 2025 punishable under sections 118(1), 351(2) r/w 3(5) of BNS, on the file of the Nizampatnam Police Station as procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Sri P. Kranthi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that although the complaint lodged by the petitioner was registered as a case against the accused in F.I.R. No. 34 of 2025, dated 18.06.2025, on the file of Nizampatnam Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 118(1), 351(2) read with 3(5) 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/final report. 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6947 of 2026 Dated 12.03.2026 4. Sri P. Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions, submits that upon receipt of the said complaint, the petitioner’s statement was recorded. During preliminary verification, the Investigation Officer obtained the wound certificate of the complainant from the Medical Officer, CHC Nizampatnam. As the injuries sustained by him were grievous in nature, the section of law was accordingly altered from Section 118(1) of ‘the BNS’, to Section 118(2) of ‘the BNS’, and an alteration memo was filed before the learned Court. After completion of the investigation, the Investigation Officer filed a charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 4 before the learned I Junior Civil Judge, Repalle, Guntur District, vide C.C. No. 917 of 2025, and the same is pending before the said Court. 5. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Arshad Khan1, wherein at paragraph No.10 held as under: “10. Courts have consistently recognized that directing a time-bound investigation must remain the exception rather than the norm. Investigation is, as can be seen from the above discussion, a product of many factors and happenings apart from the crime itself, that lend to it a sense of uncertainty and the law therefore accords investigating agencies a reasonable degree of latitude. At the same time, the Constitution does not permit investigations to remain open-ended. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to a speedy trial, which necessarily includes a timely and diligent investigation, forms an essential part of Article 21, as first recognized by a Constitution Bench in Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. State of Bihar15, and later elaborated by another Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak16. It is in this constitutional setting that courts have, in appropriate cases, intervened where delay itself begins to cause prejudice. Where there is evident stagnation, unexplained inaction, or a pattern of delay that cannot be justified by the nature or complexity of the case, judicial directions fixing timelines have 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2894 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6947 of 2026 Dated 12.03.2026 been considered warranted. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India17, the Court emphasized the need for prompt and effective investigation, particularly where delay risks allowing serious matters to drift without resolution. More recently, in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar18, the Court reaffirmed that investigations cannot be allowed to continue endlessly, and that prolonged and unexplained delay between the registration of an FIR and the filing of a chargesheet may itself infringe Article 21, especially where such delay keeps an individual under a continuing cloud of suspicion without meaningful progress. Courts have also been mindful of the impact of prolonged investigation on personal liberty, particularly where coercive measures or extended custody are involved. In such cases, fixing timelines is viewed not as an intrusion into the investigative domain, but as a safeguard against inertia and arbitrariness. At the same time, the Supreme Court has cautioned against routine or mechanical directions for time-bound investigation, reiterating in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja19, that the manner and pace of investigation ordinarily lie within the investigator's domain. What emerges, therefore, is a balanced approach: courts respect the practical realities of investigation, yet intervene where delay itself threatens fairness, liberty, or the integrity of the criminal justice process.” 6. It has to be pointed out that when the Investigating Officer, noticed that the accused in Crime No. 34 of 2025 had committed an offence punishable under Section 118(2) of ‘the BNS.’, which is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years or life imprisonment, the Investigating Officer ought to have taken steps to effect the arrest of the accused and produced them before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class for remanding them to judicial custody. However, these steps were not taken by the Investigating Officer for reasons best known to him. In this regard, the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned shall conduct an enquiry into this matter and submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial) within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6947 of 2026 Dated 12.03.2026 7. Considering the above submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 12.03.2026 PBS 6 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6947 of 2026 Dated 12.03.2026 278 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6947 of 2026 Date: 12.03.2026 PBS