IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO : 1458 of 2010 Between: R.Kumar, S/o late G.R.K.Murthy, R/o Flat No.202, Block -A, P.L.N.R. Apartments, Upperpally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. 2 P.Satyanarayana, S/o Jamkaiah, Adilabad district. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Section ____ of Crl.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased toto quash the proceedins in STC.No. 2060 of 2007 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.RAGHU VEER, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER PSR, J. Crl.P.No. 1458 of 2010 O r d e r: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that absolutely there is no material against the petitioner. The STC is of the year 2007, where as the petition is filed now. Though the petitioner has raised several contentions, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the petition, in view of the delay in filing of the petition. But, as the case is of the year 2007 and number of witnesses cited is only two, the trial court is directed to dispose of the STC., within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in case the same is not disposed of within three months, the proceedings shall be stopped like, as in Section 258 Cr.P.C., and the learned Magistrate concerned shall be liable to explain for non-disposal of the case within three months. Further, it shall be the duty of the petitioner to get it to the notice of the trial Court, about this conditional order passed, as, in regular course, there is likelihood of the order missing the attention of the Presiding Officer, in view of the huge pendency in Cyberabad Criminal Courts. 3. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. February 22, 2010. *BVS