APHC010117652026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6546/2026 Between:

G UDUTHULA LALITHA SANKAR VARA PRASAD, S/O G.CHANDRA RAO, OCC PRIVTAE SERVICE AGED 32 YEARS R/O D.NO.2-100/10, SANTHI NAGAR, AGANAMPUDI VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH

3. T HE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION VISAKHAPATNAM , VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondent(S):

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 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 137 of 2025 Dt 30062025 on its file as expeditiously as possible and not filing final report as required u/s 193 of the BNSSas highly illegal arbitrary and in violation of article 14 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 3rd respondent police station to conduct proper and fair investigation in FIR No 137 of 2025 Dt 30062025 on the file of the 3rd respondent Police Station with in the time frame and file final report in the said cases 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.137 of 2025, dated 30.06.2025 on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, 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, charge sheet would be filed after completion of the investigation.

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. State, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120, 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