##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:28028 APHC010127852026

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

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 7737/2026 Between:

1. K ESUBOINA LAVANYA, W/O KESUBOINA TRINATH, S/O APPANNA, AGED PENDURTHI, PEDAGADI VILLAGE,ABOUT 42 YEARS, D.NO.

1-29, VISAKAPATNAM COMMISSIONERATE, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER

AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, A. P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR

DISTRICT - 522238.

2. T HE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VISAKAPATNAM COMMISSIONERATE, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530001.

3. T HE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER VISAKAPATNAM, COMMISSIONERATE, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530001.

4. T HE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PENDURTHI, VISAKAPATNAM COMMISSIONERATE, ANDHRA PRADESH - 530001.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. REGULAGADDA VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2

2026:AP HC:28028 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 writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not conducting the further investigation in respect of Crime No. 277 OF 2024 registered for the offences u/s 447,427,506 r/w 34 of IPC dated 05.06.2024ih accordance with procedure contemplated u/s 157 arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also violations of Article 14,16,19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direet the respondents to prevent the accused for committing further commission of offence and conduct further investigation and file the

charge sheet…”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant

Government Pleader.

3. Mr.R.Venkatesh, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that although the complaint lodged by the Petitioner was registered as a case against the accused in F.I.R.No.277 of 2024, dated 05.06.2024, on the file of Pendurthy Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C.,’), Respondent No.4 has failed to carry out 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.

3

2026:AP HC:28028

5. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.4 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 asc