APHC010669172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 1317 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-19 [3552] Vykuntha Aruna ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. V. S. R. S. Naidu Advocates for Respondents : GP for Home CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 05th January 2026 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ: The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 10.11.2025, passed in W.P.No.30576 of 2025. 2. The learned single Judge by virtue of the judgment and order impugned refused the relief sought by the petitioner as regards appointment of a competent Investigation Officer for investigation in Crime No.206 of 2025 registered with Addanki Police Station, Bapatla District. 3. The learned single Judge by virtue of the judgment and order impugned observed that the injuries suffered by the petitioner were simple in nature and further that the investigation had since been concluded and charge 2 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1317 of 2025 sheet has already been filed in the Court and accordingly disposed of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the investigation leading to filing of the charge sheet was neither fair nor comprehensive and that neither was the statement of the petitioner recorded nor the relevant witnesses examined. 5. The learned single Judge, however, has in the judgment and order impugned referred to the statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, who, on written instructions, submitted that, on receipt of intimation from the hospital, the police personnel were deputed to record the statement of the petitioner and on the strength of the said statement, Crime No.206 of 2025 was registered for the offences under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 79 and 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 6. We feel that the petitioner did have a remedy to approach the trial Court in terms of Section 193(9) r/w Section 175(1) of the BNSS, 2023, which vests the Magistrate concerned the power to order further investigation at all stages of progress of criminal case before the trial actually commences. What was held by the Apex Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. The State of Gujarat1 is reproduced hereunder: “42. There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate's powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused 1 (2019) 17 SCC 1 3 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1317 of 2025 appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440] , Samaj Parivartan Samudaya [Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 7 SCC 407 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 365] , Vinay Tyagi [Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 557] , and Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] ; Hardeep Singh [Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 86] having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi [Hasanbhai 4 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1317 of 2025 Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1603] . Therefore, to the extent that the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel [Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel, (2017) 4 SCC 177 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 331] , Athul Rao [Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 14 SCC 298 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 594] and Bikash Ranjan Rout [Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 5 SCC 542 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 613] have held to the contrary, they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Admn.) [Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1997) 1 SCC 361] and Reeta Nag v. State of W.B. [Reeta Nag v. State of W.B., (2009) 9 SCC 129 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1051] also stand overruled.” 7. In Anant Thanur Karmuse Vs. State of Maharashtra2, the Apex Court followed the ratio laid down in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya (1 supra) and proceeded further to hold that the constitutional Courts could order investigation / reinvestigation / de novo investigation even after the charge sheet was filed and charges were framed. It was held: “42. Applying the law laid down by this Court in Dharam Pal and Bharati Tamang and to do the complete justice and in furtherance of fair investigation and fair trial, the constitutional courts may order further investigation/reinvestigation/de novo investigation even after the charge- sheet is filed and the charges are framed. If the submission on behalf of the accused and even as observed by the High Court that once the charge- sheet is filed and the charges are framed, there may not be any order for further investigation/reinvestigation/de novo investigation is accepted, in that case, the accused may see to it that the charges are framed to avoid any fair investigation/fair trial. It would lead to travesty of justice.” 8. While this Court may have the power to order further investigation/reinvestigation in terms of the ratio laid down by the judgments supra, yet considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we 2 (2023) 5 SCC 802 5 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1317 of 2025 feel that it would be appropriate for the appellant to work out her remedies before the trial Court if so advised. 9. This Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J kbs 6 HCJ & CGRJ W.A.No.1317 of 2025 301 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN W.A.No.1317 of 2025 Dt: 05.01.2026 kbs