1 APHC010030632026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 466/2026 Between: 1. CHINNAPPA REDDY, S/O. LATE C. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,R/O. 201, SRIVARI RESIDENCY, SRINIVASAPURAM,TIRUCHANUR ROAD, TIRUPATI,TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep by its Station House OfficerTirupati East Police Station, Tirupati District Through the Public ProsecutorHigh Court of A.P., Nelapadu,Amaravati, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Courtpleased to direct the Hon’ble VI Additional District and Sessions Judge- Cum - Special Court For Trial of Offences against Women, Chittoor to expedite the Trial in S.C No. 284 of 2017 in a stipulated time period as this Hon’ble Court may fix in accordance with the law and pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. KANDERI CHETHAN Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 3 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 466/2026 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 a direction to the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women, Chittoor, to expedite the trial in S.C. No. 284 of 2017. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.3 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Perused the record. 3. As seen from the record, the petitioner sought expeditious disposal of S.C. No. 284 of 2017 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women, Chittoor. 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 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 4 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. The case pertains to the year 2017, whereas the crime was registered in 2017. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court for Trial of Offences against Women, Chittoor, is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of S.C. No. 284 of 2017 at the earliest and to submit compliance of the same to the Registrar (Judicial). The learned Sessions Judge is further directed to explore 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 5 all permissible options, including splitting up the case, and to proceed with the trial accordingly. 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 KKV