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 Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action things and Deeds of Respondents in not changing the investigation Agency with the Crime Investigation Department Economic Offences Wing or in conducting proper investigation or filing the Final Report in respect of F I R in Crime No 16/2023 dated 23.01.2023 for the offences punishable 468, 471, 506 r/w 120b, 420 of IPC on the file of the 5th Respondent Police Station which is illegal irregular arbitrary against to the Principles of Natural Justice contrary to the provisions of Cr. P. C. /BNSS 2023 and in violation of Articles 14 19 and 21 of Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondents to change the Investigation Agency with the Crime Investigation Department Economic Offences Wing thereby direct to proceed with further investigation and to file the Final Report in respect of F I R in Crime No 16/2023 dated 23.01.2023 for the offences punishable under Section 468, 471, 506 r/w 120b, 420 of I P C on the file of 5th Respondent Police Station and to pass…”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that although the complaint lodged by the petitioners was registered as a case against Accused in F.I.R.No.16 of 2023, dated 23.01.2023 on the file of Kotabommali Police Station, Srikakulam District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 506 read with 120b, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’), by Respondent No.5, he has failed to proceed with the investigation and has not taken any steps to file the charge sheet.

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.

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.

In this regard, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Shankar v. State¹2026 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.

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 impr