Bolagani Venkata Siva Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

BOLAGANI VENKATA SIVA RAO, S/O NARAYANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. DOOR NO.3-23-14, FLAT NO.301, VIMALADEVI HOMES, 4TH LANE, RAVINDRA NAGAR, PATTABHIPURAM, GUNTUR - 522 006.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522238

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 503.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GUNTUR DISTRICT, GUNTUR. 522004

¶15

THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER SDPO, WEST ZONE DIVISION, GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522004

¶16

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NAGARAMPALEM POLICE STATION, NAGARAMPALEM, GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522004

¶17

THE MANDAL TAHSILDAR, GUNTUR WEST MANDAL, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522002.

¶18

PALAPARTHY SUBBARAO, SUB INSPECTOR, I.O OF FIR NO.

¶19

2

¶20

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6277 of 2026 Dated 06.03.2026

¶21

498/2022 PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUB INSPECTOR, ARUNDALPET POLICE STATION, ARUNDALPET, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522002,

¶22

HYMARAO, CIRCLE INSPECTOR, THE THEN STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PRESENTLY WORKING AS CIRCLE INSPECTOR, NARASARAOPET II TOWN POLICE STATION. PALNADU DISTRICT, 522601 ERSTWHILE GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522 601.

¶23

UMA MAHESWARA REDDY, SDPO / DSP, THE THEN SDPO / DSP, WEST ZONE DIVISION, PRESENTLY WORKING UNDER DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE DGP OFFICE, A.P POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, 522503

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

CHAKRAVARTHY P V S K

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

GP FOR HOME

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶32

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not consider the Petitioner's representation dated 27-01-2026, by taking necessary action against the 4th and 5th respondents who are holding offices from 06-12-2022 to till now for not filing final report in FIR No 498 of 2022 on the file of the Nagarampalem police Station and violated the procedure and law and dereliction of their public law duties, is as illegal, arbitrary and voilative of principle of natural justice and also voilative of article 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 2701-2026, by taking necessary action against the 4th and 5th respondents who are holding offices from 06-12-2022 to till now for not filing final report in FIR No 498 of 2022 on the file of the Nagarampalem

¶33

3

¶34

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6277 of 2026 Dated 06.03.2026

¶35

police Station and violated the procedure and law and dereliction of their public law duties and pass…”

¶36

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

¶37

Sri P.V.S.K. Chakravarthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that although the complaint lodged by the petitioner was registered as a case against the accused in F.I.R. No. 498 of 2022, dated 05.12.2022, before Respondent No. 5, Nagarampalem Police Station, Guntur District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 448, 506 read with 34 of ‘the IPC’, Respondent No. 4 subsequently conducted a panchanama illegally and broke open the petitioner’s shop. Therefore, the petitioner filed a representation before the 2nd respondent to curb the illegal acts of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, but he failed to take any steps to compel them to file the final report in the FIR.

¶38

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶39

Be that as it may, the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 are duty bound to conduct a thorough, fair, impartial and effective investigation and conduct the investigation to the logical end as per the procedure.

¶40

4

¶41

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6277 of 2026 Dated 06.03.2026

¶42

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

¶43

Apex Court in A. Shankar v. State¹ , wherein at paragraph Nos. 15 and

¶44

20, it is held as under:

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

7. Therefore, in A. Shankar supra , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held

¶48

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, without considering the stage of

¶49

the proceedings, may prejudice a fair trial and is liable to be disapproved.

¶50

1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120

¶51

5

¶52

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6277 of 2026 Dated 06.03.2026

¶53

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Respondent

¶54

Nos. 4 and 5 are directed to complete the investigation and take appropriate steps, either by filing a final report in the FIR or a charge sheet before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, and to submit the results of the investigation to the District Superintendent of Police.

¶55