APHC010012642026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] MONDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 275/2026 Between: SANGANI KRISHNARJUNA, S/O. DHARMARAO,AGED 39 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.5-13-262,SAVITHRI NAGAR, YANAM, PONDICHERRY STATE ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI 2. SANGANI DEVI, W/O. KRISHNARJUNA, AGED 33 YEARS,R/O. BYRAVAPALEM, I.POLAVARAM MANDAL AND P.S 3. SANGANI DHARMA RAO, S/O. PERIYYA, AGED 54 YEARS,R/O. D.NO.5-13-262, SAVITHRI NAGAR,YANAM, PONDICHERRY STATE 4. SANGANI SATYAVATHI, W/O. DHARMA RAO, AGED 54 YEARSR/O. BYRAVAPALEM, I.POLAVARAM MANDAL AND P.S 5. OLETI DHANAVATHI, W/O. RAMARAJU, AGED 30 YEARSD.NO. 5- 13-285, SAVITHRI NAGAR,YANAM, PONDICHERRY STATE 6. SANGANI KASU RATNAM, D/O DHARMA RAO,AGED 25 YEARS, D.NO.5-13-262, SAVITHRI NAGAR,YANAM, PONDICHERRY STATE 7. SANGANI ESWARI, D/O DHARMA RAO,AGED 22 YEARS, D.NO.5-13- 262, SAVITHRI NAGAR,YANAM, PONDICHERRY STATE 8. LANKE BUJJI, W/O VEERA BABU,AGED 42 YEARS, D.NO.5-13-262, 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.275 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 SAVITHRI NAGARYANAM, PONDICHERRY STATE ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.275 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 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 quash the proceedings against the Petitioner/Appellant/Respondent No.1 in Crl.A.No.220 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram. 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 sought expeditious disposal of Crl.A.No.220 of 2023 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak1, 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-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: 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.275 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 “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 II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of Crl.A.No.220 of 2023 at the earliest and submit compliance of the same 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: 19.01.2026 PRA 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.275 of 2026 Dated 19.01.2026 93 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.275 of 2026 Date: 19.01.2026 PRA