APHC010586622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11438/2025 Between: G Rajitha and Others ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. TATA SINGAIAH GOUD Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 in FIR.No.241 of 2025 on the file of the Tenali Rural Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.11438 of 2025 Dated 17.03.2026 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 61(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Though the petition is filed seeking for quashment of the proceedings in FIR No.241 of 2025 on the file of Tenali Rural Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 61(2) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS.,’ the learned counsel for the petitioners confines his relief to expediting the investigation and filing appropriate proceedings. 4. No representation for respondent No.2. The petitioners were already granted pre-arrest bail by this Court on an earlier occasion. 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 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.11438 of 2025 Dated 17.03.2026 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. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the investigating officer is directed to expedite the process of the investigation and file appropriate proceedings before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 17.03.2026 KMS 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.11438 of 2025 Dated 17.03.2026 111 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.11438 of 2025 Date: 17.03.2026 KMS