High Courts should exercise restraint in directing time-bound investigations or mandatory filing of charge sheets to preserve the investigating officer's discretion, unless there is evident stagnation or unexplained delay that violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents 2 and 3 in not completing the investigation and not filing the final report/charge sheet in Crime No 41/2024 dated 13. 02. 2024 registered for the offences under Sections 420 506 r/w 34 I.P.C on the file of Nawabpeta Police Station SPSR Nellore District as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to complete the investigation and file the final report/charge sheet within a stipulated time frame…”

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

3. Mr.Chukka Kranthi Kiran, 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.41 of 2024, dated 13.02.2024 on the file of Nawabpet Urban Police Station, SPSR Nellore District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’), by Respondent No.3, 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.3 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 impr