Disposed¶32

Kodukala Venkata Satyanarayana, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Mar 2026CRLP/11882/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Crl.P. No.11882 of 2025; quash FIR No.48 of 2025; II Town Police Station Visakhapatnam; Accused No.6 scribe of document; Joint Sub-Registrar-I; Section 482 CrPC; Section 528 BNSS; IPC Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 34; pre-arrest bail Crl.P. No.2755 of 2025 dated 24.03.2025; A. Shankar v. State 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 paras 15 and 20; expedite/expedite completion of investigation; investigating officer to file appropriate proceedings before jurisdictional Magistrate; disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the investigating officer to complete the investigation and file appropriate proceedings before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate; miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed. ¶32

Kodukala Venkata Satyanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.6 in FIR No.48 of 2025 (II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam), registered for alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC, should be quashed. +1 more

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the investigating officer to complete the investigation and file appropriate proceedings before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶32

Key takeaways

Anchoring its approach in the Apex Court's guidance in A. Shankar v. State (paras 15 and 20, cautioning High Courts against directions that foreclose the investigating officer's discretion), the Court did not quash the proceedings or mandate a charge-sheet, confining itself to directing completion of the investigation.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS by Kodukala Venkata Satyanarayana, arrayed as Accused No.6 in FIR No.48 of 2025 (II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam) on the allegation that he scribed a document with prior knowledge of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 IPC; he had earlier obtained pre-arrest bail in Crl.P. No.2755 of 2025 (24.03.2025). Counsel confined the relief sought to expediting the investigation. Finding the Apex Court's decision in A. Shankar v. State, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120 (paras 15 and 20, urging restraint on High Courts from issuing directions that foreclose the investigating officer's discretion) apposite, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the investigating officer to complete the investigation and file appropriate proceedings before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate; miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed.

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010616092025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 11882/2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

KODUKALA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA,, S/O. BHASKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NATIVE OF D.NO. 2-25/38, FLAT NO. 506, GEETHANJALI GARDENS APARTMENTS,NEAR ICICI BANK, MIDHILAPURI VUDA COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM (RURAL) - 530041, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT D.NO. 2-169/21, FLAT NO. 201, CHILUKURI BLOSSOMS APARTMENT,OPP. ADITYA APARTMENT, MIDHILAPURI VUDA COLONY, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530048.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, II TOWN POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.

¶12

THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR1, VISAKHAPATNAM RURAL,OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530002.

¶13

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

¶15

1.GOLLAMUDI NAGASATYANARAYANA

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶17

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

¶19

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.11882 of 2025 Dated 17.03.2026

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

ORDER :

¶22

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity “Cr.P.C.”)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity “BNSS”), seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/Accused No.6 in FIR No.48 of 2025 on the file of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity “IPC”).

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.6 by respondent No.2/Joint Sub-Registrar-I. The allegation against the petitioner is that he scribed the document with prior knowledge of the alleged offence. A learned Single Judge of this Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in Crl.P. No.2755 of 2025 on 24.03.2025.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner, though initially sought quashment of the proceedings in FIR No.48 of 2025 on the file of II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam, confines his relief to expediting the process of investigation and filing appropriate proceedings.

¶26

¶27

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.11882 of 2025 Dated 17.03.2026

¶28

5. In this regard, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

¶29

Court in A. Shankar v. State¹ , wherein at paragraph Nos. 15 and 20, it is held 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 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.

¶32

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Criminal Petition is disposed of, directing the investigating officer to complete the investigation and file appropriate proceedings before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶33

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.

¶34

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

¶35

Date: 17.03.2026 KMS

¶36

1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120

¶37

¶38

Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.11882 of 2025 Dated 17.03.2026

¶39