THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7884 of 2009 DATED:24.09.2009 Between: Kothapally Bhaskara Ramam .. Petitioner And Chikkam Jyothi and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7884 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the second respondent. No notice is being ordered to the first respondent, as the matter is being disposed of, at the stage of admission. The First Information Report in Cr.No.273 of 2009 of Rajahmundry III Town Police Station, East Godavari District was registered on the written report of the first respondent. The allegations are about the first respondent being deceived with a promise of employment with a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month by the first accused and being violated sexually etc. The second accused was stated to have come into the picture later at the instance of the first accused. When the petitioner was taking the first respondent in his Safari Car to drop her, he was also claimed to have sexually exploited the first respondent and there were further events specified in the written report, which led to the registration of the crime. What the petitioner claims is that he is innocent of the offences and had never seen the first respondent in his life and that a cheque in question concerning his employment was misused in this case. The petitioner also claims that the vague allegations could have been made much earlier when the first respondent was deceived by the first accused and that there were no allegations against the petitioner insofar as any offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned. Thus, the claims of the petitioner are denials of the allegations made by the first respondent and necessarily involve disputed questions of fact. The claims of the first respondent and the denials of the petitioner require to be investigated into by the statutory investigating agency in depth, in the interests of justice. In view of the seriousness and magnitude of the offence alleged, taking recourse to the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to arrive at any finding of fact on the issues in controversy will not aid in securing the ends of justice. The inherent jurisdiction available only in the rarest of rare cases cannot be exercised in this Criminal Petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 24th September 2009 KH