APHC010122782026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6809/2026 Between: 1. CHEMITIGANTI DIVYA JYOTHI, W/O VEERANJ ANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O 2ND LINE, ANNAPURNA NAGAR, GORANTIA, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELLAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENARAL OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522004. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522004. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NALLAPADU POLICE STATION, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522004. 6. K VAMSIDHAR, S/O.NOT KNOWN,AGE 45 JYEARS, OCC.CIRCLE INSPECTOR, NALLAPADU POLICE STATION, GUNTUR RURAL MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522005. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6809 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 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, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities in failing to conduct a fair, impartial and effective investigation in Crime No.1321 of 2025 of Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondents to carry out a proper, thorough and time-bound investigation by invoking all relevant penal provisions and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to change the present Investigating Officer in Crime No. 1321 of 2025 Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur District, and appoint any other competent officer, as may be necessary, to ensure impartiality and uphold the rule of law pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D TARAKA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 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 a writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities in failing to conduct a fair, impartial and effective investigation in Crime No.1321 of 2025 of Nallapadu Police Station, Guntur District, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6809 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 consequently direct the respondents to carry out a proper, thorough and time-bound investigation by invoking all relevant penal provisions and to pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr. D. Taraka Prasad, 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.1321 of 2025, dated 24.12.2025 on the file of Nallapdu Police Station, Guntur District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 115 (2), 351 (2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999, by Respondent No.5, 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 the investigation is at progressive stage, chargesheet would be filed after completion of the investigation. 5. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.5 is duty bound to conduct a thorough, fair, impartial and effective investigation and conduct the investigation to the logical end as per the procedure. 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6809 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 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 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. 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6809 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.5 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. 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: 23.03.2026 SSA/CMK 6 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6809 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 92 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRITPETITION No.6809 of 2026 Date:23.03.2026 SSA/CMK