APHC010268662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4304/2026 Between: 1. PAMIDI KOTESWARA RAO, S/O SESHAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS,R/O D.NO.3- 72-2, 3RD LANE, PANDIRUPURAMCHILAKALURIPET TOWN, PALANADU DISTRICT. (BEING L.W.3 AND BROTHER OF DECEASED DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT) ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. PALEPU HARI BABU, S/O SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.CASTE KAMMA,R/O GURIJEPALLI VILLAGE, SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL,PRESENTLY RESIDING AT IDUPULAPADU VILLAGE, INKOLLU MANDALPRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. GONNEPUDI SUJATHA, W/O BRAHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.CASTE KAMMA,R/O GURIJEPALLI VILLAGE, SANTHAMAGULURU MANDALPRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHILAKALURIPETA TOWN,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. GONNEPUDI BRAHMAIAH, S/O KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARSCASTE KAMMA,R/O CHILAKALURIPETA TOWN,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. PALEPU KRISHNA MURTHY, S/O SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,CASTE KAMMA,R/O GURIJEPALLI VILLAGE, SANTHAMAGULURU MANDAL,PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 2 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4304 of 2026 Dated 08.05.2026 1. RAVI TEJA GUDE 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 direction to the learned Trial Court to expedite the disposal of C.C.No.183 of 2023 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Addanki. 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 the C.C.No.183 of 2023 on the file of the learned Trial Court. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak1, wherein 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 3 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4304 of 2026 Dated 08.05.2026 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. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, ‘the learned Trial Court’, is directed to dispose of the case in C.C.No.183 of 2023 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. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 08.05.2026 KMS 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 Dr.YLR, J Crl.P.No.4304 of 2026 Dated 08.05.2026 247 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4304 of 2026 Date: 08.05.2026 KMS