Disposed¶38

G Rajitha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Mar 2026CRLP/11438/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Criminal Petition No.11438 of 2025, Dr Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, decided 17.03.2026; G Rajitha and Others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others; Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS quashing petition; FIR No.241 of 2025, Tenali Rural Police Station, Guntur District; BNS Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 61(2) read with 3(5); expedite investigation; A. Shankar v. State 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120; pre-arrest bail; disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Investigating officer directed to expedite the investigation and file appropriate proceedings before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate; Criminal Petition disposed of; miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed. ¶38

G Rajitha Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Cheating and Forgery | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in FIR No.241 of 2025 (Tenali Rural Police Station, Guntur District) against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6, registered for alleged offences under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 61(2) read with 3(5) BNS, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

The FIR proceedings were not quashed; considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the investigating officer was directed to expedite the process of the investigation and file appropriate proceedings before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Acting on the guidance of A. Shankar v. State (2026 SCC OnLine SC 120), paras 15 and 20 — that High Courts ought to exercise restraint and not issue directions foreclosing an investigating officer's discretion — the Court issued no directive mandating a charge-sheet or trial time-frame, confining its order to expeditious investigation.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS) — quashment sought of proceedings in FIR No.241 of 2025, Tenali Rural P.S., Guntur District (Ss.318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 61(2) r/w 3(5) BNS) against Accused Nos.3 to 6 — counsel confined relief to expediting the investigation — relying on A. Shankar v. State, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 (paras 15, 20), cautioning High Courts against directions foreclosing an investigating officer's discretion — Court directed the I.O. to expedite the investigation and file appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Magistrate — petition disposed of; miscellaneous petitions closed. (Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.; 17.03.2026; petitioners had earlier obtained pre-arrest bail; no representation for respondent No.2.)

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010586622025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11438/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

G Rajitha and Others

¶11

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶16

1.TATA SINGAIAH GOUD

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶18

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

2.SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER :

¶21

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.,’)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNSS’) seeking to quash the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.3 to 6 in FIR.No.241 of 2025 on the file of the Tenali Rural Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(2),

¶22

¶23

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.11438 of 2025 Dated 17.03.2026

¶24

318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 61(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’).

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶26

Though the petition is filed seeking for quashment of the proceedings in FIR No.241 of 2025 on the file of Tenali Rural Police Station, Guntur District, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 336(2), 338, 340(2), 61(2) read with 3(5) of ‘the BNS.,’ the learned counsel for the petitioners confines his relief to expediting the investigation and filing appropriate proceedings.

¶27

No representation for respondent No.2. The petitioners were already granted pre-arrest bail by this Court on an earlier occasion.

¶28

In this regard, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Shankar v. State¹ , wherein at paragraph Nos. 15 and 20, it is held

¶29

as under:

¶30

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.

¶31

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

¶32

1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120

¶33

¶34

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.11438 of 2025 Dated 17.03.2026

¶35

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.

¶36