The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. 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 nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No. 5 in not conducting free, fair and proper investigation into the crime as Crime No.551/2025 of PM Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam registered under section 316(2), 316(3), 318(4), 318(1), 308(5), 351(2) r/w 3(5) BNS, 175(3) BNSS and not filing charge sheet before the Court below even after lapse of more than 6 months as being illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2ND respondent to instruct the respondent No. 3 4 to conduct free, fair proper investigation into above Crime in FIR No.551/2025 of PM Palem Police Station by filing action taken report before this Hon'ble Court forthwith …”

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

3. Mr. Kothapalli Hari Krishna, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that although the complaint lodged by the Petitioner was registered as a case against Accused Nos. 1 to 11 in F.I.R. No. 551 of 2025, dated 18.09.2025, on the file of P.M. Palem Police Station, Visakhapatnam Commissionerate, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 316(3), 318(4), 318(1), 308(5), and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’) and Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNSS’), by Respondent No.5, he has failed to conduct a free, fair, and proper investigation into the crime 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.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.

6. 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.

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 improper exercise of jurisdiction. It was further held that issuing directions to file charge-sheets or to conclude trials within a fixed timeframe,