Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr. Subramanian Swamy, vs State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 29 September, 2021
Author: Arup Kumar Goswami
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami, Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.70 of 2021
(Through Video-Conferencing)
Dr. Subramanian Swamy, S/o. Sitaram Subramanian,
Age: 81 years, Occ: Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha),
R/o.Ab-14, Pandara Road, New Delhi - 110003,
and another ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal
Secretary, Home Department, Government of A.P.,
2nd Block, Ground Floor, Room No.185, A.P. Secretariat
Office, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh,
and others ... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners : Parties-in-person
Counsel for respondents : Mr. V. Maheswara Reddy, Govt.
Pleader for Home
ORAL ORDER
Dt: 29.09.2021 (Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ) Heard Dr. Subramanian Swamy, petitioner No.1-in-person as well as Mr. Satya Sabharwal, petitioner No.2-in-person. Also heard Mr. V. Maheswara Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents.
2. A memo is filed by the learned Government Pleader for Home today, enclosing thereto charge sheet filed in the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati in Cr.No.534 of 2019, under Sections 153(A), 295(A), 505(2), 120(B) IPC read with Section 34 IPC of East Police Station, Tirupati, vide C.C.No.3886 of 2021 dated 28.09.2021.
3. A copy of the memo along with the charge sheet was furnished to Dr. Subramanian Swamy and on consideration of the same, he has submitted that now that the charge sheet is filed, the trial should proceed in an 2 HCJ & NJS,J W.P. (PIL) No.70 of 2021 expeditious manner. He has also submitted that in cases of this kind, it is always appropriate for the investigating agency to complete investigation as early as possible.
4. Having heard the learned petitioners-in-person as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home, we are of the considered opinion that this writ petition (PIL) need not be continued any further and the same is disposed of observing that the learned trial Court will proceed in the matter in accordance with law and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J MRR