APHC010128212026 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: 6881/2026 Between: 1. PAPPU SANDHYA RANI, W/O PAPPU VEERA BHADRA RAO, AGED 40, OCC.BUSINESS R/O FLAT NO. 101,KARANAM ENCLAVE, OPP DAY AND NIGHT HOSPITAL SRINAGAR COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM CITY VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522237 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 530001 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PENDURTHY POLICE STATION VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH. RESPONDENTS 531173 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 toissue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents more particularly 3RD respondent in not conducting investigation in FIR No. 245 of 2024 Dt. 18-05- 2024 on its file as expeditiously as possible and not filing final report as required u/s 193 of the BNSS as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 2 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6881 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 3RD respondent police station to conduct proper and fair investigation in FIR No. 245 of 2024 Dt. 18-05-2024 on the file of the 3RD respondent Police Station within the time frame and file final report in the said case 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 3RD respondent to conduct proper and fair investigation in to FIR No. 245 of 2024 Dt. 18-05-2024 on its file as expeditiously as possible and file charge sheet in the said case and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 3 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6881 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 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 a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents more particularly 3rdrespondent in not conducting investigation in FIR No. 245 of 2024 Dt. 18-05-2024 on its file as expeditiously as possible and not filing final report as required u/s 193 of the BNSS as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of article 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rdrespondent police station to conduct proper and fair investigation in FIR No.245 of 2024 Dt. 18-05-2024 on the file of the 3RD respondent Police Station within the time frame and file final report in the said case and to pass…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. 3. Mr.G.Yaswanth, 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.245 of 2024, dated 18.05.2024 on the file of PendurthyPolice Station, Visakhapatnam District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections447, 426, 354, 341, 427, 307, 506, 509 r/w 34of the Indian penal Code (for brevity ‘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, on written instructions, submits that the investigation is at progressive stage, chargesheet would be filed after completion of the investigation. 4 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6881 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 5. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.3 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. Shankarsupra, 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 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 5 Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6881 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 the proceedings, may prejudice a fair trial and is liable to be disapproved. 8. 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. 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.6881 of 2026 Dated 23.03.2026 41 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRITPETITION No.6881 of 2026 Date:23.03.2026 SSA/CMK