APHC010227262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3514/2026 Between: 1. AIAMURU RAMA KRISHNA, S/O. LATE SUBBARAYUDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,,OCCEMPOYEE ,NANDYAL MUNICIPOLITYR/O. H.NO, 28-341, TALARIPETA,NOONEPALLI,NANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT. 2. ALAMURU SHASIKALA, W/O. RAMA KRISHNA,AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,,OCCHOUSE WIFE,R/O. H.NO. 28-341, TALARIPETA,NOONEPALLINANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT. 3. ALAMURU BHANU SUDHEER, S/O. RAMA KRISHNA,AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,,OCCSTUDENT,R/O. H.NO. 28-341, TALARIPETA,NOONEPALLI,NANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT. 4. ALAMURU HARSHA VARDHAN, S/O. RAMA KRISHNAAGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,,OCCSTUDENT,R/O. H.NO. 28-341, TALARIPETA,NOONEPALLI,NANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF A.P, AMARAVATI, NELAPADU. 2. ALAMURU LAXMI DEVI, W/O LATE VENKATA RAMANA,AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,OCCHOUSE WIFE,R/O. TALARIPETA,NOONEPALLI,NANDYAL TOWN AND DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. B S REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 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 to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C. No. 29 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal (for brevity, „the learned Trial Court‟), and to direct the trial Court to expedite the hearing and conclude the trial, preferably within a period of three (03) months. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. As seen from the record, the Petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the C.C.No.29 of 2024 on the file of the „learned Trial Court‟. 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 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 3 repeatedly refused to fix any such outer time-limitin spite of the Sixth Amendment. Nor do we think that not fixing any such outer limit ineffectuates 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: “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. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, „the learned Trial Court‟, is directed to dispose of the case in C.C.No.29 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial). 7. 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: 27.04.2026 KMS 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 135 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3514 of 2026 Date: 27.04.2026 KMS