HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7277 of 2009 Dated : 11.09.2009 Between : M.Panduranga Rao & 3 others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7277 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Smt.Y.Anupama Devi, 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 first respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Kaikaluru Rural Police have registered crime No.74 of 2009 on the written report of the second respondent about his obtaining an order of interim injunction in respect of the disputed tank inspite of which the alleged incident had happened on 15.07.2009. The second respondent alleged that the petitioners came upon him by force, abused him in filthy language and the first petitioner kicked him on the chest, on which, the second respondent fell down. The second respondent further alleged that all the four petitioners beat him with hands and legs indiscriminately with which the eye witnesses interfered and the crime so registered is under investigation. The petitioners claim that the report is given with false allegations as an offshoot of the civil litigation between the parties. But, even the opinion of the Assistant Public Prosecutor given to the Station House Officer, Kaikaluru Rural Police Station, shows that as per the documents, the Assistant Public Prosecutor found the claim of ownership of the second respondent to some extent of the land to be correct and though she stated that the second respondent can take action for violation of interim injunction, the written report is not confined to mere violation of injunction, but also speaks about the acts of physical assault against the second respondent. The dispute insofar as it relates to the alleged trespass may be open to be considered as of civil nature in view of the pendency of the civil suit as opined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, but insofar as the other culpable conduct alleged against the petitioners, about the abuse and assault on the second respondent are concerned, there is nothing civil in the other allegations. The allegations of the second respondent and the denials of the petitioners in this regard involved disputed questions of fact and in a restricted and summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot indulge in any deep fact finding enquiry. Such issues of fact have to be left open to the investigating agency and the trial Court to determine on merits and the inherent jurisdiction which is available only in rarest of rare cases cannot be invoked in instances of such controversial issues of fact. Therefore, the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not appear sustainable. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 11th September, 2009 SUR