APHC010062322026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 945/2026 Between: 1. PARASA SURESH, S/O LATE RAJAIAH,AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEER/O GOTTIPROLU VILLAGE, NAIDUPET MANDAL,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. PARASA KOTAMMA, W/O LATE RAJAIAH,AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD,R/O GOTTIPROLU VILLAGE, NAIDUPET MANDALSPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. PARASA HARI PRASAD, S/O LATE RAJAIAH,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC PVT. EMPLOYEER/O GOTTIPROLU VILLAGE, NAIDUPET MANDAL,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. PARASA NITHYA, W/O HARI PRASAD,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,R/O GOTTIPROLU VILLAGE, NAIDUPET MANDAL,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH,AMARAVATHI, THROUGH S.L. OF POLICE,NAIDUPET POLICE STATION, 2. PANDI VENKATRAMANAMMA, D/O LATE PANDI SUNDARIAH,AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,R/O VEERLAGUNDAPADU VILLAGE, NAIDUPET MANDAL,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.945 of 2026 Dated 10.02.2026 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): 1. GUNDA GOPI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.945 of 2026 Dated 10.02.2026 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 Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.364 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Naidupet (for brevity, ‘the learned Trial Court’) for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C.,’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the D.P.Act.,’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners sought expeditious disposal of C.C.No.364 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Naidupet. 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.” 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.945 of 2026 Dated 10.02.2026 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 2021, whereas the crime was registered in 2020. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, ‘the learned Trial Court, is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of C.C.No.364 of 2021 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: 10.02.2026 PRA 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.945 of 2026 Dated 10.02.2026 81 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 945 of 2026 Date: 10.02.2026 PRA