Disposed¶62

Dandu Savitramma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Feb 2026CRLP/963/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Speedy trial; expeditious disposal of unnumbered private complaints; direction to Magistrate to number and dispose of complaints; no time-bound schedule for disposal to be fixed (Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak; High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P); right to speedy disposal under Article 21; Section 482 CrPC; Section 528 BNSS; Section 351 BNS; report to Registrar (Judicial); Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; common order in Crl.P.Nos.955 & 963 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, to dispose of Sr.Nos.8971 and 12130 of 2024 in C.C.Nos.unnumbered/2024 as expeditiously as possible and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial); miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed. ¶62

Dandu Savitramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, should be directed to number the private complaints (Sr.Nos.8971 and 12130 of 2024 in C.C.Nos.unnumbered/2024) and dispose of them expeditiously. +1 more

¶43

Court's answer

The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, is directed to dispose of the applications i.e., Sr.Nos.8971 and 12130 of 2024 in C.C.Nos.unnumbered/2024, as expeditiously as possible, and to submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial).

¶61

Ratio / Principle

The practice of giving directions to Trial Courts fixing a schedule for disposal of cases is deprecated (per Abdul Rehman Antulay and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad), but the right to speedy disposal is one of the facets of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶60

Key takeaways

Both Criminal Petitions (Nos.955 and 963 of 2026) are disposed of, and pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petitions under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS by accused persons seeking a direction to the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, to number private complaints (Sr.Nos.8971 and 12130 of 2024 in C.C.Nos.unnumbered/2024), alleging offence under S.351 BNS against respondent Nos.2 and 3, and to dispose of them expeditiously. Held, relying on Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225, and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P, AIROnline 2024 SC 143, that fixing a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases is deprecated; however, the right to speedy disposal is a facet of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Magistrate was directed to dispose of the complaints as expeditiously as possible and submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial). Petitions disposed of; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶1

APHC010062792026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3521]

¶5

MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NOs: 955 and 963 of 2026

¶8

1.CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 955/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

DANDU SAVITRAMMA, W/O RAMA CHANDRA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,R/O, FLAT NO.T-1, 3RD FLOOR, SUBHADRA RESIDENCY,35TH WARD, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.PIN CODE-534202.

¶11

DANDU RAMA CHANDRA RAJU, S/O RAMA RAJULATE, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,R/O, FLAT NO.T-1, 3RD FLOOR, SUBHADRA RESIDENCY,35TH WARD, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.PIN CODE-534202.

¶12

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,A.P HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI

¶15

TUMMALAPALLI VENKATA NAGESWARA GUPTHA, S/O, NOT KNOWN,FLAT NO.T-1,3RD FLOOR, SUBHADRA RESIDENCY,35TH WARD, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.PIN CODE534202

¶16

ADAVI BALA KRISHNA, S/O NOT KNOWN,R/O,FLAT NO.T-1, 3RD FLOOR, SUBHADRA RESIDENCY 35TH WARD, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.PIN CODE-534202

¶17

¶18

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.955 & 963 of 2026 Dated 09.02.2026

¶19

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶21

VARDHINEEDI SAI KIRAN

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶23

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶24

2.CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 963/2026

¶25

Between:

¶26

DANDU SAVITRAMMA, W/O RAMA CHANDRA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,R/O, FLAT NO.T-1,3RD FLOOR, SUBHADRA RESIDENCY,35TH WARD, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.PIN CODE-534202.

¶27

DANDU RAMA CHANDRA RAJU, S/O RAMA RAJULATE, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS,R/O, FLAT NO.T-1, 3RD FLOOR, SUBHADRA RESIDENCY,35TH WARD, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.PIN CODE-534202.

¶28

...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)

¶29

AND

¶30

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,A.P HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI

¶31

TUMMALAPALLI VENKATA NAGESWARA GUPTHA, S/O, NOT KNOWN,FLAT NO.T-1, 3RD FLOOR, SUBHADRA RESIDENCY,35TH WARD, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.PIN CODE534202.

¶32

ADAVI BALA KRISHNA, S/O NOT KNOWN,R/O,FLAT NO.T-1, 3RD FLOOR, SUBHADRA RESIDENCY,35TH WARD, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.PIN CODE-534202.

¶33

THE BRANCH MANAGER, MAIN BRANCH, STATE BANK OF INDIA,BESIDE OLD HEAD POST OFFICE,BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.PINCODE.534201.

¶34

¶35

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.955 & 963 of 2026 Dated 09.02.2026

¶36

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):

¶38

VARDHINEEDI SAI KIRAN

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

¶40

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶41

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:

¶42

The Criminal Petition Nos.955 and 963 of 2026 are heard and disposed of by this common order, although they arise out of two different unnumbered cases, the petitioners/de-facto complainants and the respondents/Accused are one and the same.

¶43

The Criminal Petition Nos.955 and 963 of 2026 have 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 II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, to proceed further by numbering the private complaints vide Sr.Nos.8971 and 12130 of 2024 in C.C.Nos.unnumbered/2024 and dispose of the same as early as possible.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the private complaints were lodged in Sr.Nos.8971 and 12130 of 2024 in C.C.Nos.unnumbered/2024 on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, for the alleged offence punishable

¶45

¶46

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.955 & 963 of 2026 Dated 09.02.2026

¶47

under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘the BNS’) against respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶48

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

¶49

As seen from the record, the petitioners seek expeditious disposal by numbering the private complaints vide Sr.Nos.8971 and 12130 of 2024 in C.C.Nos.unnumbered/2024 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate

¶50

of First Class, Bhimavaram. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Abdul

¶51

Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak¹ , at paragraph No.86 (10) held as under:

¶52

“(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.”

¶53

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

¶54

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

¶55

“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.”

¶56

1(1992) 1 SCC 225

¶57

2AIROnline 2024 SC 143

¶58

¶59

Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.Nos.955 & 963 of 2026 Dated 09.02.2026

¶60

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.

¶61

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, is directed to dispose of the applications i.e., Sr.Nos.8971 and 12130 of 2024 in C.C.Nos.unnumbered/2024, as expeditiously as possible and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial).

¶62