HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7547 of 2009 Dated : 17.09.2009 Between : Chandra Sekhar and others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7547 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri M.Achutha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioners are facing prosecution in P.R.C.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Mahaboobnagar District, for an alleged offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The police filed charge sheet alleging that the crime was registered on the report of the father of the deceased, who in such report had stated that the deceased was tortured physically and mentally as she was issueless and not beautiful, and that the petitioners also demanded further dowry of Rs.1 lakh. In the written report it was also alleged that the deceased informed to them that all the petitioners poured kerosene and set fire to her. The investigator also claims that the parents corroborated the allegations of harassment of the deceased by the petitioners when they were examined during investigation. Apart from examination of one circumstantial witness, who is the neighbour of the deceased, the inquest report also may throw some light on the issue. What the petitioners contend is that the deceased in her dying declaration to the Magistrate did not allege any culpable conduct on the part of the petitioners and they further claim that the parents of the deceased also are not substantiating the allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, they are seeking quashing of the proceedings. However, what circumstances made the deceased to give a dying declaration in the manner in which she gave it and what circumstances persuaded the parents of the deceased to adopt different stands, etc. are questions which have to be gone into on merits by the trial Court after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it during trial. It cannot be said that even ex facie there is no possibility of attributing any culpable conduct to any of the petitioners and therefore, these facts in issue are better left open for determination during trial and cannot be the subject of exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing the proceedings, which jurisdiction is available only in rarest of rare cases. Therefore, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th September, 2009 SUR