APHC010465112024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7431/2024 Between: 1. VADDIBOYINA YANADHI REDDY, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED 72 YEARS, OCC FARMER 2. SMT. VADDIBOYINA LAKSHMI NARASAMMA,, W/O. V. YANADHI REDDY, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO. 3/271, OPP. TO BVR COLLEGE, BADVEL TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI, AMARAVATHI. 2. CHANDRA SUPRAJA, D/O. VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE R/O D.NO. 39/448-5, OMSHANTHI NAGAR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. P V L BHANU PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 The Court made the following: ORDER: 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 a direction to the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, to dispose of the case in C.C.No.358 of 2013, as early as possible. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Mr.P.V.L.Bhanu Prakash, the learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks expeditious disposal of the C.C.No.358 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak1, wherein at paragraph No.86 (10) held as under: “(10) It is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time-limit for trial of offences. Any such rule is bound to be qualified one. Such rule cannot also be evolved merely to shift the burden of proving justification on to the shoulders of the prosecution. In every case of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, it is primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is the duty of the court to weigh all the circumstances of a given case before pronouncing upon the complaint. The Supreme Court of USA too has repeatedly refused to fix any such outer time-limit in spite of the Sixth Amendment. Nor do we think that not fixing any such outer limit in effectuates the guarantee of right to speedy trial.” 4. The Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P2, at paragraph No.32 held as under: 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 3 “32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time- bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.” 5. It is observed that the practice of giving directions to the learned Trial Courts fixing the schedule for disposal of the cases were deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad supra. However, the right to speedy disposal is one of the facets of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6. As seen from the record, Petitioners Nos.1 and 2, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.217 of 2019, are aged about 72 years and 62 years, respectively. The alleged offences attributed against the Petitioners by Respondent No.2 are under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C.,), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the D.P Act’). It is apposite to refer to the Circular issued by this Court on the administrative side in ROC No.126/OPCELL-E/2025 dated 27.06.2025, wherein directions were issued to all the Judicial Officers in the State to bestow personal attention and expedite the process of hearing and disposal of cases relating to Senior Citizens on a priority basis. In that regard, the Unit Heads were also directed to submit monthly statements regarding disposal of Senior Citizen cases on priority. 4 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, is directed to expedite the hearing in C.C.No.358 of 2013 and dispose of the same, and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial) as early as possible. 8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 16.04.2026 PRA 5 81 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7431 of 2024 Date: 16.04.2026 PRA