HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6292 of 2009 DATED:17.08.2009 Between: Yerumala Srinivasulu .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh through Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6292 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, 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 disposed of at the stage of admission. The crime was registered against the petitioner on the written report of the second respondent, dated 31.05.2009. The second respondent alleged the petitioner to be involved in an incident of abusing her on 13.05.2009, another incident of entering into her chamber in her absence on 14.05.2009 and further incidents on 19.05.2009, 21.05.2009 and 28.05.2009 during which he was subjecting her to mental cruelty by speaking in foul and discourteous language, which may amount to black-mailing and humiliating her. Whether the allegations are true or not, is a different question and it is equally a different question, as to whether the allegations would constitute the specific offences for which the crime was registered. These questions of fact are for the investigating agency to go into during the statutory investigation, which cannot be the subject of a deep fact finding probe in a restricted and summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The claims of the petitioner that he attempted to expose the illegalities and irregularities, as a responsible journalist which subjected him to the risk of facing the prosecution have also to be properly enquired into and appreciated by the investigating agency or the Court of competent jurisdiction at the appropriate stage. But, as the Criminal Petition raises only disputed questions of fact, the same does not appear entertainable under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a responsible journalist and apart from his contentions about his innocence, even the allegations of the second respondent are not constituting the offences alleged but he is apprehending indefinite detention in the event of arrest under the guise of further investigation but such apprehensions need not be true as any arrest will be resorted to by the investigating agency only if it is absolutely indispensable for the purposes of further investigation and if the petitioner were to be produced before the Court of competent jurisdiction with any request for judicial custody on such arrest, such Court will also deal with any request for grant of bail to the petitioner with all the expedition and urgency that such a request deserves. In any view, to allay the fears of the petitioner, the Court of competent jurisdiction can be requested to act accordingly as per law. In the result, while the Criminal Petition is dismissed, in the event of arrest and production of the petitioner before the Court of competent jurisdiction with a request for judicial custody, such Court shall consider and decide, on merits, in accordance with law, any request of the petitioner for release of bail on the same day on which such a request is made. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th August 2009 KH