HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6296 of 2009 DATED:18.08.2009 Between: Jagarapu Danavendra Rao .. Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6296 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Jayanti S.C.Sekhar, 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 the second respondent, as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Crime No.15 of 2009 of A.Koduru Police Station, Visakhapatnam was registered on the written report from the second respondent alleging that after the death of her husband and after begetting a daughter through the deceased husband, she developed intimacy with the petitioner about five years back and she married him about three years back. The second respondent further alleged that she is being subjected to cruelty and harassment by the petitioner. It is seen from the material papers enclosed to the Criminal Petition that the police, while requesting for remand of the petitioner to judicial custody stated that the investigation is not yet completed and some more witnesses have to be examined. The petitioner, of course, produced the copy of the voters list of 2009 of Madugula Assembly Constituency describing the second respondent as the wife of Eswara Rao, the Caste and Residence certificate issued by Tahsildar, K.Kotapadu, on 08.09.2007 stating the second respondent to be the wife of G.Eswara Rao and also the death certificate showing that the death of Gandepalli Eswara Rao, was registered to have occurred on 27.02.2009. Such documents, of course, may run prima facie contra to the claims of the second respondent in the report to the police but these are disputed questions of fact. In a summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was cautioned that the Court should not go into the reliability, acceptability and genuineness of the allegations made in the criminal proceedings. The petitioner is undoubtedly at liberty to produce all such material, which would falsify the allegations of the second respondent before the statutory investigating agency, which can be believed to make every effort to arrive at truth during the course of investigation in discharge of its statutory duties under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The claims of the petitioner about having absolutely no connection with the second respondent can be projected before the investigating agency also and it will be unsafe for this Court to embark upon a deep fact finding enquiry into such allegations in these proceedings. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is available only in the rarest of rare cases, does not appear available herein. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed with the above observations. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 18th August 2009 KH