Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Vaddiboyina Yanadhi Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 April, 2026
APHC010465112024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3521]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7431/2024
Between:
1. VADDIBOYINA YANADHI REDDY, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA REDDY,
AGED 72 YEARS, OCC FARMER
2. SMT. VADDIBOYINA LAKSHMI NARASAMMA,, W/O. V. YANADHI
REDDY, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE. BOTH ARE
RESIDENTS OF NO. 3/271, OPP. TO BVR COLLEGE, BADVEL
TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI,
AMARAVATHI.
2. CHANDRA SUPRAJA, D/O. VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE EMPLOYEE R/O D.NO.
39/448-5, OMSHANTHI NAGAR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. P V L BHANU PRAKASH
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2
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 I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa,
to dispose of the case in C.C.No.358 of 2013, as early as possible.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.
3. Mr.P.V.L.Bhanu Prakash, the learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks
expeditious disposal of the C.C.No.358 of 2013 on the file of the learned I
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. 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
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:
1
(1992) 1 SCC 225
2
AIROnline 2024 SC 143
3“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. As seen from the record, Petitioners Nos.1 and 2, who are arrayed as
Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.217 of 2019, are aged about 72 years and 62
years, respectively. The alleged offences attributed against the Petitioners by
Respondent No.2 are under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for brevity, ‘the I.P.C.,), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the D.P Act‘). 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 regard, the Unit Heads were also directed to submit
monthly statements regarding disposal of Senior Citizen cases on priority.
4
7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the learned
I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, is directed to expedite
the hearing in C.C.No.358 of 2013 and dispose of the same, and submit a
report to that effect to the Registrar (Judicial) as early as possible.
8. In the result, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________
DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J
Date: 16.04.2026
PRA
5
81
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7431 of 2024
Date: 16.04.2026
PRA
