Yerragunta Sreematha Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

[3521]

¶2

APHC010170352026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2521/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

YERRAGUNTA SREEMATHA REDDY, S/O LATE PEDDA THIRIPALU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, FLAT NO. 102. PRIDE HOMES APARTMENTS. SARASWATH NAGAR, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE, SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH-524003.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HIGH BUILDINGS .AF NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶12

MUPPAVARAPU RAM SANATH, S/O. SURENDRA BABU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT A BLOCK, 1ST FLOOR, BALAJI CLASSIC APARTMENT. BACK SIDE OF VARAMAHALAKSHMI SILK SHOP, MINI BYPASS ROAD. SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

CHETAN PONNURU

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

2

¶19

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2521 of 2026 Dated 02.04.2026

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

ORDER :

¶22

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 a direction to the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, to expedite the Trial in C.C.No.4573 of 2025 and conclude the same in light of the Circular of this Court in ROC.No.126/OPCELL-E/2025 dated 27.06.2025.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

¶24

No notice is required to be issued to Respondent No.2, inasmuch as the petition is filed seeking a direction for early disposal of the case.

¶25

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:

¶26

“(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.”

¶27

1(1992) 1 SCC 225

¶28

3

¶29

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2521 of 2026 Dated 02.04.2026

¶30

5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v.

¶31

State of U.P² at paragraph No.32 held as under:

¶32

“32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a timebound 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.”

¶33

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.

¶34

The petitioner is aged about 75 years and is the de-facto complainant in C.C.No.4573 of 2025. The alleged offences are punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 319(2) of ‘the BNSS’ in Crime No.182 of 2025 of Dargamitta Police Station, Nellore. It is apposite to refer to the Circular issued by this Court on the administrative side in ROC No.126/OPCELL-E/2025 dated 27.06.2025, wherein directions were issued to all the judicial officers in the State to bestow personal attention and expedite the process of hearing and disposal of cases relating to senior citizens on a priority basis. In that

¶35

2AIROnline 2024 SC 143

¶36

4

¶37

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.2521 of 2026 Dated 02.04.2026

¶38

regard, the Unit Heads were also directed to submit monthly statements regarding disposal of senior citizen cases on priority.

¶39

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore, is directed to expedite the hearing in C.C.No.4573 of 2025 as early as possible and dispose of the same, and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶40