HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5935 of 2009 Dated : 05.08.2009 Between : Mohd. Ghouse ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.5935 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri J.Somasundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Dhananjayaa, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who entered appearance 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.214 of 2008 was registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of the second respondent on the allegation that the petitioner was entertaining a dishonest intention since inception to cheat the second respondent, which was also disclosed by the dishonour of the cheque in question. What the petitioner contends in this criminal petition is that the second respondent is misusing the four cheques obtained at the time of paying the chit amount under three groups for Rs.1 lakh each and the hand loan of Rs.50,000/- taken from the second respondent and that C.C.No.290 of 2008 was already filed by the second respondent for dishonour of cheque No.236348 dated 20.11.2007 while the present crime is sought to be pursued on the strength of the second cheque No.236349. The truth or otherwise of the contentions of the second respondent or the petitioner has to be gone into by the statutory investigating agency during the investigation and the disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into by this Court in a restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only in rarest of rare cases with great care, caution and circumspection and cannot be invoked in the case depending upon the allegations and counter allegations of the parties, the correctness of which has to be tested before the investigating agency and later before the trial Court. As this Court cannot conclude such questions of fact on merits, the criminal petition does not lie. Sri J.Somasundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.M.P.No.2001 of 2009 on 21.07.2009, still he is apprehending oppressive inconvenience during the further investigation. The statutory investigating agency shall seek the presence of petitioner for the purpose of further investigation only if it is absolutely indispensable and not otherwise. Subject to the above observation, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 5th August, 2009 SUR