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 especially in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 in not conducting investigation, and retrieving the amount of Rs.28,82,000/- which were kept in hold/debt freeze in the seven bank accounts, as per the information furnished by the National Cyber Crime Authority, in pursuant to the F.I.R No.290 of 2024, on the file of the Rajanagaram P.S, East Godavari District, though the same is registered on 09-07-2024, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha Act, 2023 (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973), Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.5 to retrieve the amount of Rs.28,82,000/- which were kept in hold/debt freeze in the seven bank accounts, as per the information furnished by the National Cyber Crime Authority, in pursuant to the F.I.R No.290 of 2024, on the file of the Rajanagaram P.S, East Godavari District, expeditiously and pass…”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

3. Mr. T. V.Jaggi Reddy, 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.290 of 2024, dated 09.07.2024 on the file of Rajanagaram Urban Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity ‘the IPC’) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity ‘the ITA’), by Respondent No.5, 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.

5. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.5 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 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. Shankar supra, 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 i