Medi Kranthi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

MEDI KRANTHI, S/O SURYA PRAKASH, AGE 22 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE OF CHENNAPATNAM FILTER COFFEE, R/O D. NO 50117-20/3, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM (URBAN) VISAKHAPATNAM -530013.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT,530002

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, DISTRICT.530003

¶16

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICECUMSTATION HOUSE OFFICER, CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.530020

¶17

PARUCHURI YASHWANTH, S/O SIVA KUMAR, R/O FLAT NO 501, D. NO. 6-139,FORTUNE RESIDENCY, CHALASANI NAGAR,KANURU, KRISHNA, A.P- 520007.

¶18

G CHAITANYA VARMA, S/O G. NARAYANA RAO, R/O D. NO. 46-76, BHAGI STREET VARI, DONDAPARTHI VISAKHAPATNAM URBAN, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P- 530016.

¶19

GIRI MOHAN, (NOT KNOWN WHERE ABOUTS)

¶20

2

¶21

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6650 of 2026

¶22

Dated 12.03.2026

¶23

D HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O BALAIAH, SIVASANKARI RESIDENCY, FLAT NO 205, NEAR OXFORD SCHOOL, PIDUGURALLA TOWN. 522413

¶24

BOLLA S N V KRISHNA RAO, S/O B. SATYANARAYANA, R/O D.NO. 41-4/5-81, DWARAKA NAGAR, KRISHNA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA, AP - 520013.

¶25

SAI PRASAD REDDY UNOFFICIAL FIGHTER, (NOT KNOWN WHERE ABOUTS)

¶26

MALE RAJENDAR REDDY, S/O MALLA REDDY, PLOT NO. 101, REDDY COLONY, BESIDE INFRAREDS FUNCTION HALL, SAGAR REDDY, NALGONDA, TELANGANA - 508004.

¶27

PARUCHURI SIVA KUMAR, D.NO. 6-139, FORTUNE RESIDENCY, CHALASANI NAGAR,KANURU, KRISHNA, A.P. - 520007.

¶28

CHAITANYA KOSURI, S/O KOSURI KISHORE KUMAR, R/O D.NO. 13-37/1, FLAT NO. E6, SAI SOWMYA RESIDENCY, PINNAMANENI TEACHERS COLONY, NEAR MANA KALYANA MANDAPAM, VIJAYAWADA (RURAL), KANURU, KRISHNA, A.P - 520007.

¶29

KURD RAJU, R/O H.NO. 1-70, BASWARAJUPALLY, DHARMARAOPET, GANAPURAMMULUGU, DHARMARAOPET, WARANGAL TELANGANA-506 345.

¶30

NARESH, BROTHER OF GUMMADI VASANTHA, D.NO. 36-47-9, JASUVA NAGAR, NEAR JASUVA CLUB, KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM (URBAN), KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530008.

¶31

KONGARAPU SAI KUMAR, S/O RAMA SANKARARAO, D. NO. 21-449, BOODI VEEDI, VIZIANAGARAM, A.P - 535001.

¶32

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶34

SIREESHA RANI VALLABHANENI

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶36

GP FOR HOME

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

3

¶39

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6650 of 2026 Dated 12.03.2026

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

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

¶42

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents particularly 4th respondent in not investigating and not filling Charge Sheet in crime in F.I.R. No 27 of 2025, dated 04.02.2025 registered under Sections 351(2) r/w 3(5) BNS, 66-C ITA - 2000-2008 on the file of 4th respondent against 5th respondent and others on my complaint dated 04.02.2025, as being illegal, irregular and amounts to non-discharge of legal obligation conferred on the respondents under the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to investigate into the crime and file charge sheet against the 5th respondent and others and prosecute the accused persons for appropriate offences under penal provisions of law by subjecting the offenders to the process of arrest and judicial remand by recovering personal data from the offenders and pass such…”

¶43

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

¶44

Sri V. Sireesha Rani, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶45

submits that although the complaint lodged by the petitioner was registered as a case against respondent No.5 in F.I.R.No.27 of 2025, dated 04.02.2025 on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 351(2) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity ‘the BNS’), 66-C ITA – 2000-2008 by Respondent No.4, he has failed to proceed with the investigation and has not taken any steps to file the charge sheet.

¶46

4

¶47

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6650 of 2026

¶48

Dated 12.03.2026

¶49

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written

¶50

instructions, submits that the investigation is being conducted strictly in accordance with law, and requires time for obtaining digital evidence from the concerned social media platforms.

¶51

Be that as it may, the Respondent No.4 is duty bound to conduct a thorough, fair, impartial and effective investigation and conduct the investigation to the logical end as per the procedure.

¶52

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

¶53

20, it is held as under:

¶54

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.

¶55

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.

¶56

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

¶57

that the High Court should not, at the stage of investigation, direct the

¶58

1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 120

¶59

5

¶60

Dr. YLR, J W.P.No.6650 of 2026 Dated 12.03.2026

¶61

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

¶62

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent No.4 is directed to complete the investigation and take appropriate steps, either by filing a charge sheet or a final report before the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, and submit about the results of the investigation to the District Superintendent of Police.

¶63