HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7349 of 2009 Dated : 14.09.2009 Between : Smt.Sajida Begum & 5 others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7349 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Mohd.Abdul Samad, 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 private complaint leading to registration of the crime and filing of the report by the Police into the Court has specifically alleged that there were incidents involving not only the husband but also the other members of the family, who were all residing under the same roof. The private complaint specifically stated that all the accused harassed the victim alleging that less Zahed articles and other things were given at the time of the marriage and that they abused the wife in most filthy language treating her as a maidservant. The complaint also alleges incidents due to which the second respondent suffered abortions twice and in the incident that happened on 15.07.2006 she was claimed to have been kicked by all the accused except the husband. She was ultimately claimed to have been necked out from the matrimonial home. The charge sheet which contains the result of the investigation shows that no case was prima facie established against A.7 and A.9 while the allegations against A.1 to A.6 and A.8 appear to have been prima facie established during the investigation concerning the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is true that Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was deleted, but that was not because of the allegations of the second respondent being false, but because of the failure to produce any medical certificate. It is also true that the allegations in the private complaint were involving A.2 to A.9 together while the said allegations can be said to have been considered and not found to be correct by the investigating officer. However, this may also show that the investigation by the statutory investigating agency was independent and proceeded only on evidence collected during the investigation. The charge sheet shows that apart from the second respondent, her parents, one neighbour and three independent witnesses were also cited to corroborate the claims made in the charge sheet and thus, the evidence has to be produced before the trial Court to know as to whether guilt of the present petitioners will be established beyond reasonable doubt or not. The petitioners denied the allegations and claimed innocence of any offences, but the truth or otherwise of the contents of the charge sheet and the denials of the petitioners will have to be gone into during the trial and not in a restricted summary enquiry by this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Disputed questions of fact cannot be probed into by exercising inherent jurisdiction, which is available only in rarest of rare cases. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised not as a matter of course, but with great care, caution and circumspection. In the circumstances, the allegations and counter allegations have to be determined by the trial Court and cannot be the subject matter of exercise of any inherent jurisdiction by this Court in a restricted enquiry. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 14th September, 2009 SUR