APHC010464582026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7768 OF 2026 Between: 1. Myla Raj Kumar, S/o. Jayaraju, Aged 35 yrs, R/o. Pedapeta,Akiveedu Village and Mandal,West Godavari District. ...Petitioner AND 1. Myla Rajeswari, W/o. Raj Kumar,Aged 33 years, R/o. Kolanapalli Village,Kalla Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, ,Rep. by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of Andhra Pradesh At Amaravati. ...Respondents 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 Courtquash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No. 1 in C.C.No. 587 of 2018 the file of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram which arose out of Cr.No. 47/2018 of Kalla Police Station, West Godavari District IA NO: 1 OF 2026 2 Petition under Section 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 dispense with the filing of certified copy of the chargesheet in C.C.No. 587 of 2018 on the file of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram IA NO: 2 OF 2026 Petition under Section 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 stay all further proceedings against the petitioner/accused No. 1 in C.C.No. 587 of 2018 on the file of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram which arose out of Cr.No. 47/2018 of Kalla Police Station, West Godavari District Counsel for the Petitioner: N PAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondents: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7768 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of petitioner herein (A1), seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.587 of 2018 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, for the offences under Section 498A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that, owing to a misunderstanding that arose between petitioner and respondent No.2, the petitioner lost his employment and is presently eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work. He further submits that, on account of the pendency of C.C.No.587 of 2018 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, the petitioner is facing difficulty in securing coolie work and as such, he restricted his prayer only to the extent to direct the trial Court to expedite the disposal of 4 C.C.No.587 of 2018 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram. 4. He further submits that the criminal proceedings against the family members of petitioner in the very same C.C.No.587 of 2018 were quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.10226 of 2018, a copy of the same is annexed to the present Criminal Petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has not refuted the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has expressed no objection for directing the trial Court to expedite the trial in C.C.No.587 of 2018. 6. It is apt to note that way back in the year 1979 itself, Hon’ble Apex Court categorically in its vivid terms in Hussainara Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar1, held as under: “Speedy trial is, as held by us in our earlier judgment dated 26th February, 1979, an essential ingredient of ‘reasonable, fair and just’ procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to devise such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial of the accused.” 7. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Kailash Chandra Kapri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others2 at paragraph No.15 held as under: 1 AIR 1979 SC 1369 2 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 487 5 “15. The Right to have a speedy trial is one of the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution irrespective of the fact whether the accused is in jail or on bail and furthermore irrespective of the nature of the crime. This speedy trial is one of the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and from the facts and circumstances of a given case if the High court finds that the proceeding if allowed to continue will amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution then the High court should not hesitate to exercise its inherent powers under Section528 of the BNSS 2023 or in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.” 8. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as the C.C is of the year 2018 and in view of the fact that right to get speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the same was vividly reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case in C.C.No.587 of 2018 as expeditiously as possible, and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial). 9. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________________________ JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 07.09.2026 NOTE: Issue CC by 10.09.2026 (B/o) KRK 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7768 of 2026 Date: 07.09.2026 KRK