High Courts should generally avoid directing time-bound filing of charge sheets during investigations to preserve the investigating officer's discretion, intervening only in cases of evident stagnation or unexplained delay to ensure the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

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 the respondents are not conducting a fair proper and impartial investigation and in not filing the charge sheet in Crime No 49 of 2025 on the file of Duggirala Police Station as Guntur District illegal arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 and consequently direct the respondents to conduct a fair impartial and expeditious investigation in Crime No 49 of 2025 on the file of Duggirala Police Station Guntur District and to complete the investigation and file a charge sheet against the accused therein before the competent Court within a time frame to be stipulated by this Honble Court and pass…”

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

Sri Srinivasa Rao Morthas, 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.49 of 2025, dated 19.03.2025 on the file of Duggirala Police Station, Guntur District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 79 , 115(1), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), 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. 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.

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 issuing directions to file charge-sheets or to conclude trials within a fixed