✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 01 May 2026

COMPLEX, ELURU. ELURUDISTRICT v. AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT

Criminal Appeal No. 3472 of 2026Y LAKSHMANA RAO3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Disposed of

In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of

Key paragraphs

  • Para 77. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 2AIR Online 2024 SC 143 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.3472 of 2026 Dated 01.05.2026 As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Date: 01.05.2026 RSI _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J 5…

Judgment

Cause title

MEDAPATI SUDHAKAR REDDY, , S/O. LATE SRINIVASA REDDY, MALE,AGED42 YEARS,OCC REAL ESTATE BUSINESSM R/O. VAIBHAV TOWERS,WESTERN STREET OPP, MOTHIVARI SHOPPING COMPLEX, ELURU. ELURUDISTRICT ...PETITIONER

/COMPLAINANT AND

1. KOLAMURI SATHISH, , S/O. SATYAVATHI, MALE, AGED31 YEARS, OCCBUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.20F-13-51, BURADAVARI STREET, KOTHAPETA,ELURU. ELURU DISTRICT.

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THROUGHS.H.O. ELURU 1 TOWN P.S. ELURU, ELURU DISTRICT, HIGH COURT BUILDINGSNELAPADU, AMARAVATHI. GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S)

: Counsel for the Petitioner/complainant: B P RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.3472 of 2026 Dated 01.05.2026 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 a direction to the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru, West Godavari District, to dispose of the case in S.T.C.No.128 of 2024, as early as possible.

2.

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

3.

As seen from the record, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the S.T.C.No.128 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru, West Godavari District. 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:

(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-limit in spite of the Sixth 1(1992) 1 SCC 225 3 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.3472 of 2026 Dated 01.05.2026 Amendment. Nor do we think that not fixing any such outer limit in effectuates the guarantee of right to speedy trial.

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Eluru, West Godavari District, is directed to expedite the hearing in S.T.C.No.128 of 2024 and dispose of the same, and submit a report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial) as early as possible.

Operative part

7.

In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. 2AIR Online 2024 SC 143 4 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.3472 of 2026 Dated 01.05.2026 As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. Date: 01.05.2026 RSI _________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J 5 Dr. YLR, J Crl.P.No.3472 of 2026 Dated 01.05.2026 99 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3472 of 2026 Date: 01.05.2026 RSI

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Constitution of India — art. 21.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 01 May 2026. The bench was Y LAKSHMANA RAO.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Appeal No. 3472 of 2026). ← Search more judgments