APHC010065262026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] WEDNESDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1077/2026 Between: VEGI VIJAYA RAMA JOGI SURYA VARA PRASAD ALIAS PRASAD, SON OF VENU GOPALA KRISHNAMURTHY VEGI, AGED 45 YEARS.RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 1-111, LAKSHMINAGAR, NEAR GUNAMPALLI,DWARAKA TIRUMALA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF A.P.,AMARAVATHITHROUGH THE MAHILA URBAN POLICE STATION ONGOLE,. 2. M S MADHURI, D/O. SUBRAMANYAM NAIDU,AGED 42 YEARS. RESIDENT OF DOOR NO. 202,JPC PRIDE, 4 MAIN AGS LAYOUT, AREHALLI,HOBLI, BANGALURU, KARNATAKA STATE. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: ELURU SESHA MAHESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.1077 of 2026 Dated 11.02.2026 The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 8the Cr.P.C.9)/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, 8the BNSS9), seeking a direction to the learned Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole, West Godavari District, to dispose of the case in C.C.No.603 of 2024 as early as possible. 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 C.C.No.603 of 2024 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge-Cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole, West Godavari District. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon9ble 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 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.1077 of 2026 Dated 11.02.2026 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 Hon9ble 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 Hon9ble 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 Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimadole, West Godavari District, is directed to dispose of the case in C.C.No.603 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. 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.1077 of 2026 Dated 11.02.2026 As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 11.02.2026 RSI 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.1077 of 2026 Dated 11.02.2026 136 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1077 of 2026 Date: 11.02.2026 RSI