HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.5942, 5943 and 5944 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are common in all the criminal petitions while the second respondents are different in these criminal petitions and hence they are being disposed of by a common order at the stage of admission without ordering notice to respective second respondents as the questions involved are more or less common. Heard Sri M.Subbaiah Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.Dhananjayaa, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who entered appearance for the first respondent. In all the three cases, what the petitioners claim is that they are falsely implicated in respective cases at the instance of the father of the first petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the second petitioner, who is harassing them through a number of complaints by himself and through others since long in respect of the family disputes. While it is unfortunate that the differences between the father and the daughter should lead to such an avoidable situation, the allegations of the petitioners are about Musheerabad Police not taking action on their complaints, while acting fast on all the complaints initiated at the instance of the father of the first petitioner. In a limited and restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there cannot be a deep probe into disputed questions of fact or any determination of the truth or otherwise of the allegations and counter allegations. The statutory investigating agency must be allowed to conduct the investigation as per the jurisdiction conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure and un-influenced by any interference from this Court on such conflicting allegations of fact. While the criminal petitions, therefore, do not appear sustainable, Sri M.Subbaiah Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioners, represented that though the offences involved in all the three cases are bailable, the petitioners are apprehending arrest and detention in the light of the persistence of the father of the first petitioner in some how harassing the petitioners. The Station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station, can be directed to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this regard forthwith on the apprehension of the petitioners, if required during the course of further investigation into the crimes in tune with the bailable nature of the offences, which direction in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court would sufficiently safeguard the legal rights of the petitioners, while not in any way interfering with either the process of investigation or the rights and interests of the respective second respondents. Accordingly, all the three criminal petitions are dismissed. But, in case of apprehension or arrest of the petitioners in any of the three cases, which involved bailable offences only, the Station House Officer, Musheerabad Police Station, shall forthwith inform the petitioners of their right to be released on bail and if they request for such release on bail, shall consider such release on bail on execution of personal bonds by the petitioners with such surety or sureties as deemed fit by the said Station House Officer for such amounts considered appropriate by the said Station House Officer, on the same day. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 5th August, 2009 SUR