Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Arikatla Kishore vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 May, 2026
APHC010235722026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 12930/2026
Between:
1. ARIKATLA KISHORE,, S/O LATE ARIKATIA RAJA GOPALA KRISHNA
AGED 46 YEARS, WORKED AS I.T.ADMINISTRATOR, R/O
KUMBALANURU, 1ST CAMP VILLAGE, KOWTHALAM MANDAL,
KURNOOL DISTRICT -518 333.
2. ARIKATLA NAGA JYOTHI,, W/O ARIKATLA KISHORE, AGED 45
YEARS, WORKED AS I.T.ADMINISTRATOR, R/O KUMBALANURU,
1ST CAMP VILLAGE, KOWTHALAM MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT
-518 333.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT.
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CID/EOW,
DGP HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 503.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT,
S.P.OFFICE, KRISHNA PARK, TTD ROAD, SRIKAKULAM ANDHRA
PRADESH - 532 001.
2
Dr. YLR, J
W.P.No.12930 of 2026
Dated 05.05.2026
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTABOMMALI POLICE
STATION KOTABOMMALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 532 195.
6. SAMALLA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, D/O.SAMALLA ABBAYI, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, PLOT NO.6 PRASANTH NAGAR COLONY,
BALAGA, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT-532 001.
7. VAJJA RUSHIKUMAR, S/O. LATE ESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 49
YEARS, R/O. KALINGA STREET, BORUBHADRA VILLAGE
SANTHABOMMALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - 532 195.
8. MUDDAPU MANISHA, D/O. SAIBABU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/O. PRASANTHINAGAR COLONY, BALAGA, SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT - 532 001.
9. KAMMILA VEERANDHARA BABU, , S/O. SATYANARAYANA, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.31143/1, VENKATESWARAMETTA,
ALLIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530 004.
10. SAMALLA KRISHNA RAO, S/O. KAMESHWAR RAO, AGED NOT
KNOWN, BORUBADHRA VILLAGE, JIYYANNA PETA,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT-532 195.
11. KORRIPALLI VARALAKSHMI, W/O. EESWAR RAO, AGED ABOUT
43 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2-3-36, DCCB COLONY, SANA STREET,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - 532 001.
12. PINNINTI KARTEEK AND KRISHNAVENI, S/O. AND W/O
PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 AND 55 YEARS, R/O. KALINGA
STREET, RAJAPURAM VILLAGE, KAVITI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM
DISTRICT - 532 322.
13. DUVVARAPU RAMBABU, , C/O. SAMALLA VIJAYA LAXMI, AGED
NOT KNOWN. PLOT NO.6, PRASANTH NAGAR COLONY BALAGA,
SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - 532 001.
14. VIROTHI LAKSHMI, C/O. VIROTHI MAHESH, AGED NOT KNOWN,
R/O. NO.52, KANAKALA STREET, NEAR SARSWATHI PARK
DHABA GARDENS, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530 020.
15. VIROTHI LOKESH, , C/O. VIROTHI MAHESH, AGED NOT KNOWN,
R/O. NO.52, KANAKALA STREET, NEAR SARSWATHI PARK,
3
Dr. YLR, J
W.P.No.12930 of 2026
Dated 05.05.2026
DHABA GARDENS, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530 020.
16. VIROTHI MAHESH, , C/O. VIROTHI LOKESH, AGED NOT KNOWN,
R/O. NO.52, KANAKALA STREET NEAR SARSWATHI PARK,
DHABA GARDENS, VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT - 530 020.
17. SAMALLA ABBAYI, S/O. LATE RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O. HANUMAN STREET, BORUBHADRA VILLAGE,
SANTHABOMMALIMANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT-532 195.
18. SAMALLA MANAMMA, W/O. SAMALLA ABBAI, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, R/O. HANUMAN STREET, BORUBHADRA VILLAGE,
SANTHABOMMALI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT-532 195.
19. BOYINA NAGARAJU, S/O. NOT KNOWN. AGED NOT KNOWN, R/O.
VYSYA STREET, KOTABOMMALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT - 532
195.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR HOME
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
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 the nature of
Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action things and Deeds of
Respondents in not changing the investigation Agency with the Crime
Investigation Department Economic Offences Wing or in conducting
proper investigation or filing the Final Report in respect of F I R in Crime
No 16/2023 dated 23.0102023 for the offences punishable 468, 471, 506
r/w 120b, 420 of IPC on the file of the 5th Respondent Police Station
which is illegal irregular arbitrary against to the Principles of Natural
Justice contrary to the provisions of Cr. P. C. /BNSS 2023 and in
4
Dr. YLR, J
W.P.No.12930 of 2026
Dated 05.05.2026violation of Articles 14 19 and 21 of Constitution of India consequently
direct the Respondents to change the Investigation Agency with the
Crime Investigation Department Economic Offences Wing thereby direct
to proceed with further investigation and to file the Final Report in
respect of F I R in Crime No 16/2023 dated 23.01.2023 for the offences
punishable under Section 468, 471, 506 r/w 120b, 420 of I P C on the
file of 5th Respondent Police Station and to pass…”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Assistant Government Pleader.
3. Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, the learned counsel for the
petitioners, submits that although the complaint lodged by the petitioners
was registered as a case against Accused in F.I.R.No.16 of 2023, dated
23.01.2023 on the file of Kotabommali Police Station, Srikakulam
District, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 468, 471,
506 read with 120b, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the
IPC‘), by Respondent No.5, he has failed to proceed with the
investigation 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.
5
Dr. YLR, J
W.P.No.12930 of 2026
Dated 05.05.2026
6. 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 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, without considering the stage of
the proceedings, may prejudice a fair trial and is liable to be
disapproved.
1
2026 SCC OnLine SC 120
6
Dr. YLR, J
W.P.No.12930 of 2026
Dated 05.05.2026
8. Further, it is apposite to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Arshad Khan2, wherein at paragraph
Nos.9 to 11, it is held as under:
9. In exercise of these wide-ranging powers – was it justified to direct
time bound completion of investigation? The investigation of an
offence is a long, winding road. It is full of ups and downs and is not,
possibly, even for a moment, predictable in the true sense. There can
be delays in the investigation, witnesses who at one point in time
appeared confident, may begin to hesitate or completely resile from
their statement, documentary evidence on which much hope was
pinned, may turn out to be unusable or so many other such
possibilities may occur. Legal proceedings frequently intersect with
the investigation and affect its pace and direction. Applications for
anticipatory bail, regular bail, or the like can result in temporary
pauses or changes in strategy. Courts may call for further
investigation, ask for clarification on specific aspects or even direct a
change of the investigating officer. Each such intervention requires
the investigating agency to revisit its work and sometimes take a
fresh path altogether. So, it can be seen that the investigative process
is at times straight, at other times one of lots of twists, turn and
recalibrations and in yet others, frustratingly round-about like, before
it can come to a somewhat definitive conclusion to present the case
for trial before the concerned, and sometimes, even at that time the
definitive conclusion, at least from an investigator’s standpoint,
remains elusive.
While all this may undoubtedly be true, it is also unquestionably so
that it cannot be an excuse for avoidable delay. Speedy trial, which
necessarily includes timely and diligent investigation, has been
recognized as an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution and is
essential to the fairness and credibility of the criminal justice system.
Undue delay prejudices not only the accused, whose liberty and
reputation remain under a cloud, but also the victim and society at
large, for whom justice loses meaning when it is endlessly deferred.
The challenge, therefore, lies in balancing the practical realities of
investigation with the constitutional mandate that criminal
proceedings, from investigation through trial, be conducted with
reasonable promptitude and care. It is this balancing role that the
judiciary plays. It is for those reasons that while on the one hand
there is a statutorily laid down process in place which is generally
followed, powers such as that of Article 226 of the Constitution and
Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 197314 have been kept open
in their widest sense possible- to secure the ends of justice.
10. Courts have consistently recognized that directing a time-bound
investigation must remain the exception rather than the norm.
Investigation is, as can be seen from the above discussion, a product
of many factors and happenings apart from the crime itself, that lend
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2894
7
Dr. YLR, J
W.P.No.12930 of 2026
Dated 05.05.2026
to it a sense of uncertainty and the law therefore accords
investigating agencies a reasonable degree of latitude. At the same
time, the Constitution does not permit investigations to remain open-
ended. The Supreme Court has long held that the right to a speedy
trial, which necessarily includes a timely and diligent investigation,
forms an essential part of Article 21, as first recognized by a
Constitution Bench in Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. State of Bihar15,
and later elaborated by another Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman
Antulay v. R.S. Nayak16. It is in this constitutional setting that courts
have, in appropriate cases, intervened where delay itself begins to
cause prejudice. Where there is evident stagnation, unexplained
inaction, or a pattern of delay that cannot be justified by the nature or
complexity of the case, judicial directions fixing timelines have been
considered warranted. In Vineet Narain v. Union of India17, the Court
emphasized the need for prompt and effective investigation,
particularly where delay risks allowing serious matters to drift without
resolution. More recently, in Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v.
State of Bihar18, the Court reaffirmed that investigations cannot be
allowed to continue endlessly, and that prolonged and unexplained
delay between the registration of an FIR and the filing of a
chargesheet may itself infringe Article 21, especially where such
delay keeps an individual under a continuing cloud of suspicion
without meaningful progress. Courts have also been mindful of the
impact of prolonged investigation on personal liberty, particularly
where coercive measures or extended custody are involved. In such
cases, fixing timelines is viewed not as an intrusion into the
investigative domain, but as a safeguard against inertia and
arbitrariness. At the same time, the Supreme Court has cautioned
against routine or mechanical directions for time-bound investigation,
reiterating in Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja19, that the manner
and pace of investigation ordinarily lie within the investigator’s
domain. What emerges, therefore, is a balanced approach: courts
respect the practical realities of investigation, yet intervene where
delay itself threatens fairness, liberty, or the integrity of the criminal
justice process.
11. The necessary conclusion to be drawn from the above discussion
is that timelines are not drawn by the Court to be followed by the
investigators/the executive right from the beginning, for that would
clearly amount to stepping on the toes of the latter. Timelines are
therefore imposed at a point where not doing so would have adverse
consequences i.e., there is material on record demonstrating undue
delays, stagnation, or the like. In sum, timelines are imposed
reactively and not prophylactically. As such, the timelines imposed by
the High Court need to be interfered with and set aside. Ordered
accordingly.
9. Similarly, in Mohd. Arshad Khan supra, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that time-bound investigation should be an exception, as the
8
Dr. YLR, J
W.P.No.12930 of 2026
Dated 05.05.2026
process is inherently uncertain and influenced by multiple factors,
though undue delay cannot be justified in view of the right to speedy trial
under Article 21. Courts may intervene and fix timelines only where there
is clear stagnation or unexplained delay causing prejudice, and not as a
routine measure; hence such directions must be imposed sparingly and
reactively.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent
No.5 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, within a reasonable time, in accordance with
law, and submit about the results of the investigation to the respondent
No.3.
11. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 05.05.2026
RSI
9
Dr. YLR, J
W.P.No.12930 of 2026
Dated 05.05.2026
95
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.12930 of 2026
Date: 05.05.2026
RSI
