Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Y. Lakshmana Rao, J
BAKKAMUNTHALA ANJAMMA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 11581/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V S Mallikharjuna Kuladeep Thoka
For the Respondents: GP for Home
High Courts should exercise restraint in directing the time-bound filing of a charge sheet during an investigation to preserve the investigating officer's discretion, unless there is evident stagnation or unexplained delay violating the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet in connection with Cr No. 79/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 79, and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner contended that the investigating officer failed to proceed with the investigation despite the registration of the case. The respondents submitted that the investigation is at a progressive stage. The court examined whether it is permissible to direct the time-bound filing of a charge sheet during an ongoing investigation. Relying on judicial precedents, the court observed that directing a charge-sheet to be filed irrespective of the materials collected would "take away the discretion of such officer" and that time-bound investigations should be an "exception rather than the norm." The court reasoned that such directions must be imposed "reactively and not prophylactically," only where there is evident stagnation or unexplained delay that threatens the right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The respondent No.4 is directed to complete the investigation and take appropriate steps, either by filing a charge sheet or a final report before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, within a reasonable time, in accordance with law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks mandamus for time-bound filing of charge sheet in a registered criminal case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. judicial restraint is necessary to avoid curtailing the investigating officer's discretion regarding charge-sheet filing. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. time-bound investigation is a reactive exception to protect the right to speedy trial under article 21. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. direction to complete investigation and file a report within a reasonable time. (Para 11 , 12) |
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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of 3rd and 4th respondents in not filing the charge sheet by completing investigation in connection with Cr No. 79/2025 dated 07.05.2025 registered by the 4th respondent for offences u/s 115(2), 79, 351(2) r/w 35 of BNS against the respondents no 5 to 16 is illegal arbitrary and violative of principals of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd and 4th respondents to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet in connection of Cr No. 79/2025 and to pass…”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
3. Mr.V.S.M.Kuladeep Thoka, 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.79 of 2025, dated 07.05.2025 on the file of Chimakurthy Police Station, Prakasam District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 79 and 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), by Respondent No.4, 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.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 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 imprope
