HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6250 of 2009 DATED:13.08.2009 Between B.Ramachandra Reddy and others .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6250 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent, as the disposal of this matter at the stage of admission has absolutely no impact on the rights and interests of the second respondent. The Crime was registered in F.I.R.No.40 of 2009 of Renigunta Police Station, Chittoor District against the petitioners on the written complaint of the second respondent about the petitioners forging and fabricating a document relating to their land and the matter is under investigation by the statutory investigating agency in accordance with the powers conferred on it by the Code of Criminal Procedure and what the petitioners contend here is that they are purchasers of the land in question after paying full consideration to the vendors and they deny the allegations of the second respondent claiming that he ought to have approached the civil Court for reliefs of declaration of title and possession. Thus, it is seen that what is requested to be adjudicated in this Criminal Petition is the disputed fact about the document concerning the subject land in favour of the petitioners and in a restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot indulge in any deep probe into such disputed questions of fact. As it cannot be said that ex facie no culpable conduct could have been attributed to the petitioners on the allegations of the First Information Report, the inherent jurisdiction, which is available only in the rarest of rare cases cannot be invoked. However, Sri P. Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that attempts are being made to have the petitioners arrested and detained indefinitely. Any such fears can be answered by requesting the Court of competent jurisdiction to deal with any request of the petitioners for bail on the same day on which such a request is made, keeping in view the nature of the dispute having both civil and criminal ramifications. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed but if the petitioners are to be arrested and produced before the Court of competent jurisdiction, any request by them for grant of bail shall be considered and decided on merits by the said Court on the same day on which such a request is made. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 13th August 2009 KH