APHC010204312026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3075/2026 Between: 1. NARLA LAKSHMI DEVI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O. NARLA PARAMESHWARA REDDY, R/O. H.NO.4-19, CHINNA KOTTALA VILLAGE, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. NARLA PARAMESHWARAA REDDY,, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. N.NARAYANA REDDY, R/O. H.NO. 4-16, CHINNA KOTTALA VILLAGE, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. YELAMPALLI BHARATHI,, AGED 46 YEARS YELAMPALLI VISHWANATHA REDDY, R/O. BALAPANUR VILLAGE, PANDYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4. YELAMPALLI VISHWANATHA REDDY,, AGED 52 YEARS R/O. BALAPANUR VILLAGE, PANDYAM MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 5. BANDAKATI SHIRISHA,, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O. B. NAGA BHUSAN REDDY, R/O. CHINNA KOTTALA VILLAGE, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. BANDIKATI NAGA BHUSHAN REDDY,, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. CHINNA KOTTALA VILLAGE, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.3075 of 2026 Dated 17.04.2026 2. NARLA SANJEEVINI ALIAS REGATI SANJEEVINI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, C/O. R. HUSSAIN REDDY, H.NO.26-366-C, R/O. MS NAGAR, NANDYAL TOWN AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S): BUDATI GNANENDER KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 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 quash proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7 in D.V.C.No.16 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Mr. Budati Gnanendra Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the presence of the petitioners may be dispensed with during the course of trial and prays for disposal of the Criminal Petition accordingly. 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.3075 of 2026 Dated 17.04.2026 4. Mr. Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, reported no objection to dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the learned Trial Court. 5. In this regard, it is apposite to mention the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak 1 , 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.” 6. 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.” 7. 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 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 2AIROnline 2024 SC 143 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.3075 of 2026 Dated 17.04.2026 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. 8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Criminal Petition is disposed of directing the learned Trial Court not to insist on the presence of the petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 7 in D.V.C.No.16 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandyal. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the Trial in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders and submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial). 9. 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: 17.04.2026 RSI 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.3075 of 2026 Dated 17.04.2026 125 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3075 of 2026 Date: 17.04.2026 RSI