##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:34712 APHC010117372025

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

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 6266/2025 Between:

P INNIKA KRISHNAVENI, W/O BALAJI GUDIPATI, AGED 26 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 6-120-2, N.G.O. COLONY, PAMUR VILLAGE AND

MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT

BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.

3. T HE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

4. T HE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAMUR POLICE STATION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

BUGULU SREETEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

GP FOR HOME

2 Dr2.0 Y2L6R:A, JP HC:34712

W.P.No.6266 of 2025 Dated 01.04.2026

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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the constitution of India by declaring the inaction on the part of respondent No 3 and 4 in conducting and concluding the investigation in Cr No 97/2024 of Pamur Police Station Prakasam District as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent No 3 and 4 to conduct and complete the investigation in Cr No 97/2024 of Pamur Police Station

Prakasam District swiftly and to pass…”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Assistant Government Pleader.

3. Ms.Bugulu Sreeteja, 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.97 of 2024, dated 19.07.2024 on the file of Pamur Police Station, Prakasam District, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 85 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by Respondent No.4, he has failed to proceed with the investigation and has not taken any steps to file the charge

sheet.

3 Dr2.0 Y2L6R:A, JP HC:34712

W.P.No.6266 of 2025 Dated 01.04.2026

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.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 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