HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6958 of 2009 Dated : 03.09.2009 Between : S.Savithramma & 2 others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6958 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri V.V.Sathish, learned counsel representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, 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 second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The charge sheet in C.C.No.245 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandikotkur, was filed after investigation into crime No.74 of 2009 on the file of Midthur Police Station by the statutory investigating agency prima facie disclosing the possibility of committal of offences under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the petitioners herein. The charge sheet cited not only the victim/defacto complainant as a witness, but has also cited four witnesses to speak about the various events, and the Sub-Inspector of Police to speak about his investigation. It is specifically alleged in the charge sheet that the defacto complainant was beaten by the petitioners with a demand to sell away three acres of land and give them the said money and was also under compulsion to write a letter that none are responsible for her death. Further allegations were made about the defacto complainant being necked out from the house and the four witnesses cited were claimed to be the witnesses for harassment. The petitioners claim innocence and deny the allegations made against them. But the truth or falsity of the allegations cannot be probed into in a summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It may also be true that only after receipt of a legal notice issued to her that the defacto complainant gave the report to the Police, but it is well settled that the reliability and acceptability of the prosecution story are not to be appreciated and determined in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction. Therefore, the criminal petition does not appear sustainable and the inherent jurisdiction, which is available only in rarest of rare cases, cannot be invoked. Consequently, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 3rd September, 2009 SUR