APHC010187432026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2854/2026 Between: 1. SAMMEPALLI NIRMALA, W/O. S. SREEDHAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YRS, OCC PVT. SERVICE, R/O. D.NO. 14/491, PANCHALI NAGAR, RENIGUNTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. SAMMEPALLI SREEDHA, /O. S.DORASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YRS, OCC RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO. 14/491, PANCHALI NAGAR, RENIGUNTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. SAJJA JAYASUDHA, W/O. NANDA GOPAL, AGE 42 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 13-194, BHASKARPET, SRIKALAHASTI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. D PURNACHANDRA REDDY 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, 8the Cr.P.C.9)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, 8the BNSS9), seeking a direction to expedite the hearing and disposal of an application filed under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for brevity of 8the Cr.P.C9) for discharge of the petitioners in C.C. No. 516 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti (for brevity, 8the learned Trial Court9). 2. Mr. D.Purna Chandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2017 an application was filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge of the petitioner, but the application has not been disposed of by 8the learned Trial Court9, even after completion of nearly nine (09) years. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 4. As seen from the record, the Petitioner seeks a direction to expedite the hearing and disposal of an application filed under Section 239 of 8the Cr.P.C9) for discharge of the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.2194 of 2017 in C.C. No. 516 of 2016 on the file of the 8learned Trial Court9. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon9ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak1, wherein at paragraph No.86 (10) held as under: 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 3 <(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.= 5. The Hon9ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P2 at paragraph No.32 held as under: <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.= 6. 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 Hon9ble 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. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 8the learned Trial Court9, is directed to dispose of the case in Crl.M.P.No.2194 of 2017 in C.C.No.516 of 2016, if it is not already been disposed of within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of this Order and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial). 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 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: 10.04.2026 SSA 5 234 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2854 of 2026 Date: 10.04.2026 SSA