HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6818 of 2009 Dated : 03.09.2009 Between : K.Varaha Sankara Nageswara Rao ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. & 10 others ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6818 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Meka Rajasekhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to respondents Nos.2 to 11 as the petitioner states that no relief is being sought for against them and they are not necessary parties and also because the order being passed herein is without touching the rights and interests of any of the respondents in any manner. The grievance of the petitioner is that his complaint was taken cognizance against the accused in C.C.No.685 of 2001 on 20.11.2001 after which the accused Nos.1 and 6 filed a petition in Crl.P.No.66 of 2002 for getting criminal proceedings quashed. The petitioner further states that the accused Nos.1, 6 and 8 have entered appearance before the trial Court after recalling of the non-bailable warrants issued against them, but after dismissal of Crl.P.No.66 of 2002, they never physically appeared before the trial Court, getting their absence condoned by filing petitions under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from time to time on all the dates of hearing. In respect of the other accused, who were absconding, the trial Court initiated proceedings under Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the complaint of the petitioner is that no progress is being made to take the proceedings to their logical conclusion and in the meanwhile at least two witnesses cited died. He, therefore, desired the case against accused Nos.1, 6 and 8 to be split up and to be proceeded against them. The material papers on record show that notices under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure appear to have been issued, but the proceedings against the absconding accused appear to have been not yet taken to their logical conclusion. Rule 20 of the Criminal Rules of Practice enables a Magistrate to proceed with the case as against such of the accused as have appeared and dispose it of according to law, when there are several accused persons in a case and only some of them have appeared or been produced before the Court provided the Magistrate is “satisfied” that the presence of the other accused cannot be secured within a reasonable time, having due regard to the right of such of the accused, as have appeared, to have the case against them enquired into without delay. Thus, apart from the procedural formalities to be complied with concerning the accused who were absconding, the splitting up of the case is a matter which has to be determined by the trial Court in exercise of its judicial discretion and it will be inappropriate for this Court to substitute its judicial discretion to give any positive direction at this stage to the Magistrate to exercise his judicial discretion under Rule 20 of the Criminal Rules of Practice in a particular manner. However, the grievance of the petitioner about not being able to get redressal of his grievance for more than eight years is equally genuine and therefore, the trial Court can be requested to act in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and the principles thereunder, which will facilitate expediting the further proceedings in the criminal case to their logical conclusion in respect of the accused appearing and not appearing before the Court, keeping in view the right of the petitioner and also the accused appearing before the Court to have a speedy trial. While in exercise of its judicial discretion under Rule 20 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, the trial Court shall be guided by the facts and circumstances and shall come to its own conclusions on merits uninfluenced by any observations made in this order, it shall make every endeavour to so expedite the further proceedings in the criminal case. The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 3rd September, 2009 SUR