APHC010036342026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 648/2026 Between: 1.TEKU SALOMI, D/O. SUBBA RAO,AGED 30 YEARS, OCC STAFF NURSE,R/O. KOTHAPETA, BANGARUGUDEM VILLAGE,TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2.KOTICHUKKALA MANGA, W/O SUBBA RAO,AGED 45 YEARS, OCC RTD. ASHA WORKER,R/O. BANGARUGUDEM VILLAGE, TADEPALLIGUDEM MANDAL,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 2.PALAVANCHA TIRUMALA VENKATA LAKSHMANACHARYULU, S/O SATYANARAYANACHARYULU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,C/O HEAD MASTER, Z P HIGH SCHOOL,ALLAMPURAM VILLAGE, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.648 of 2026 Dated 31.01.2026 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1.NIMMAGADDA REVATHI 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 direct the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku to split-up the case against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.6 & 12 and conduct trial and disposal by fixing early time frame by deciding petitioners' petition in CrI.M.P.Sr.No.4 of 2026, dt.02.01.2026 in C.C.No.636/2017. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The grievance of the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 6 and 12 is that, although C.C.No.636 of 2017 has been pending since the year 2017, nearly seven years have elapsed without its disposal by the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel for the Petitioners, therefore, prays that the present Criminal 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.648 of 2026 Dated 31.01.2026 Petition may be disposed of expeditiously and that appropriate directions be issued for early conclusion of the trial. 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: “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 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.648 of 2026 Dated 31.01.2026 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 Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of Crl.M.P.Sr.No.4 of 2026, dated 02.01.2026, in C.C.No.636 of 2017 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: 31.01.2026 PRA 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.648 of 2026 Dated 31.01.2026 60 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.648 of 2026 Date: 31.01.2026 PRA