APHC010046852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: Between: 1. N BALAJI KUMAR REDDY, S/O. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KODEGEHALLI,BENGALURU, BUT AS PER THE MAIN PETITIONSTILL THE ADDRESS OF THIS PETITIONER IS SHOWN ASD.NO.2-1662, OPP. PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PILER. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AMARAVATI. 2. P ANURADHA, D/O. P.SURENDRA REDDY,W/O. N.BALAJI KUMAR REDDY,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARSD.NO. 18 VENKATESWARA RESIDENCY, PRASANTHI NAGAR,TIRUPATI TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3. N DHATRI SREE, D/O. N.BALAJI KUMAR REDDY MINORREPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND GUARDIANMOTHER UT PETITIONER P.ANURADHA,D.NO. 18 VENKATESWARA RESIDENCY, PRASANTHI NAGAR,TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 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 Court IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 696/2026 N BALAJI KUMAR REDDY, S/O. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KODEGEHALLI,BENGALURU, BUT AS PER THE MAIN PETITIONSTILL THE ADDRESS OF THIS PETITIONER IS SHOWN 1662, OPP. PANCHAYATH OFFICE, PILER. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AMARAVATI. P ANURADHA, D/O. P.SURENDRA REDDY,W/O. N.BALAJI KUMAR REDDY,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARSD.NO. 18-36-54 VENKATESWARA RESIDENCY, PRASANTHI NAGAR,TIRUPATI N DHATRI SREE, D/O. N.BALAJI KUMAR REDDY MINORREPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND GUARDIANMOTHER UT PETITIONER P.ANURADHA,D.NO. 18-36-54 VENKATESWARA RESIDENCY, PRASANTHI NAGAR,TIRUPATI, ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): 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 Court may be pleased to direct Ld. Trial Court for IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3521] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO N BALAJI KUMAR REDDY, S/O. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY,AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KODEGEHALLI,BENGALURU, BUT AS PER THE MAIN PETITIONSTILL THE ADDRESS OF THIS PETITIONER IS SHOWN ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC P ANURADHA, D/O. P.SURENDRA REDDY,W/O. N.BALAJI KUMAR 54-399,SRI VENKATESWARA RESIDENCY, PRASANTHI NAGAR,TIRUPATI, N DHATRI SREE, D/O. N.BALAJI KUMAR REDDY MINORREPRESENTED BY HER NEXT FRIEND GUARDIANMOTHER 54-399,SRI VENKATESWARA RESIDENCY, PRASANTHI NAGAR,TIRUPATI, AINANT(S): 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 may be pleased to direct Ld. Trial Court for the time bound early disposal of Cr1.M.P.No.219 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.44/2017 with giving fair and reasonable opportunity, in accordance with law, in order to prevent abuse of the process of law to secure the ends of justice, as well by invoking superintendence powers of this Hon'ble Court by ensuring for expeditious and proper disposal of Crl.M.P.No.219 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.44/2017 pending on the file of the learned Family Court - cum - V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. JITENDRA KANYALUR 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 for early disposal of Crl.M.P.No.219 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.44 of 2017 on the file of the learned Family Court – cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 2. Heard Sri Jitendra Kanyalur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. As seen from the record, the petitioner sought expeditious disposal of Crl.M.P.No.219 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.44 of 2017 on the file of the learned Family Court – cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. 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 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 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 Family Court – cum – V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of Crl.M.P.No.219 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.44 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 KKV