Disposed

Killari Jagga Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2026CRLP/2315/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, accused in a 2011 prohibition and excise case, sought quashing of a trial court order allowing examination of witnesses through an advocate commissioner. Both parties agreed the case should be disposed of expeditiously given its age. The High Court declined to interfere with the merits and instead directed the trial court to conclude the matter within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to dispose of C.C. No. 239 of 2011 within six months; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Killari Jagga Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Bail and Remand | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

[3604]

APHC010131882023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶5

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2315/2023

¶10

Between:

¶11

KILLARI JAGGA RAO, S/O.LATE VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC ADVOCATE, R/O.D.NO.12-14-4/1, PRAKASHNAGAR, BEHIND SWAMY SCHOOL, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT (OLD GUNTUR)

¶12

KILLARI VENKATESWARLU, (DIED)

¶13

KILLARI MANGAMMA, ,W/O.LATE VENKATESWARLU AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD, R/O.D.NO.12-14-4/1, PRAKASHNAGAR, BEHIND SWAMY SCHOOL, NARASARAOPET, PALNADU DISTRICT (OLD GUNTUR).

¶14

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶17

K SUBHADRA DEVI, C/O.SRISAILA MALLIKARJUNA RAO, R/O.D.NO.5-72-64, 1ST LANE, PANDARIPURAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶19

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 Court pleased to quash the Common Order Dated 20-02-2023 passed in CrI.M.P.No.142 of 2023 and CrI.M.P.143 of 2023 in

¶20

¶21

C.C.No.239 of 2011 on the file of Court of Learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition AND Excise, Guntur, Guntur District and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

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 pleased to dispense with the filing of certified copy of Common Order Dated 20-02-2023 passed in CrI.M.P.No.142 of 2023 and CrI.M.P.143 of 2023 in C.C.No.239 of 2011 on the file of Court of Learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class For Prohibition & Excise, Guntur, Guntur District and receive the main criminal petition on file in the interests of justice and to pass

¶24

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶25

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 be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/Accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C.No.239 of 2011 on the file of Court of Learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class For Prohibition & Excise, Guntur, Guntur District, pending disposal of the main Criminal petition and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶27

1.NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶29

1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

¶30

2.KIRTHI TEJA KONDAVEETI

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2315 of 2023

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

Heard Sri Battula Sanjaiah Gandhi, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Narasimha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶36

Assailing the order passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.142 and 143 of 2023 in C.C.No.239 of 2011 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Prohibition & Excise), Guntur, this petition is filed by the petitioners/accused.

¶37

During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they requested the trial Court for speedy disposal and this petition may be disposed of by giving a direction to the learned Trial Court to dispose of the matter within a particular time frame as the matter pertains to the year 2011.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also fairly conceded to dispose of the petition with that observation. Even as per the directions of this Court on the administrative side, vide Roc.No.559/OP Cell-E/2022, dated 20.10.2022, Roc.No.560/OP Cell/2022, dated 23.11.2022, and Roc.No.101/OP Cell/2023, dated 12.10.2023, more than five (05) year-old cases shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. This matter is of the year 2011. The learned trial Court has already allowed both the petitions filed

¶39

by the prosecution as well as the de-facto complainant to examine the witnesses through an Advocate Commissioner.

¶40

¶41

So, without touching the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this petition may be disposed of by directing the learned Trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six (06) months as the case is ten years old matter.

¶42

In the result , this criminal petition is disposed of, and the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Prohibition & Excise), Guntur, is directed to dispose C.C.No.239 of 2011 as expeditiously as possible preferably within six (06) months in accordance with law.

¶43

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

___________________________ JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM

¶45

Dated: 15.09.2026 CVD

Killari Jagga Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Killari Jagga Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases