IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6704 OF 2009 Between: Y. Ram Chander. ..... PETITIONER. AND The State of A.P., through Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, and another. ..... RESPONDENTS. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.77 of 2009 on the file of Sirikonda police station, Nizamabad District. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. S.R. SANKU, Advocate for the Petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the first Respondent, the Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6704 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri S.R. Sanku, 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. The first information report in Crime No.77 of 2009 on the file of Sirikonda police station of Nizamabad District was registered on the written report of the second respondent under Sections 498A and 494 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and three others. The petitioner claims that he already filed O.P. No.33 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court at Nizamabad, against the second respondent for divorce, as a counterblast to which the report leading to the first information report was given by her. What all the petitioner contends in this Criminal petition is about the veracity of the written report given by the second respondent leading to the registration of the Crime and whether the allegations of the second respondent are true or not and whether the report was given as a counterblast to O.P. No.33 of 2009 are questions of fact, which are not open for determination by any conclusive enquiry in these summary proceedings and the said disputed questions of fact are to be left open for determination by the investigating agency during investigation or by the trial Court, after any report by the police is placed before it, on conclusion of the investigation, and after trial. As this Court is not the appropriate forum for going into these disputed questions of fact and as the inherent jurisdiction has to be invoked only in rarest of rare cases, the Criminal petition does not appear to be sustainable. Accordingly, the Criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 26-08-2009. Dsh.