HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.713 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri B.Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri H.Prahalad Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who entered appearance for the first respondent, and Sri Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the second respondent. The Criminal Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in P.R.C.No.4 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, arising out of an incident that was alleged to have happened on 08.07.2007 at about 1.15 p.m., about which both parties appear to have given a complaint and counter complaint to the Police. It is true that in Cr.No.102 of 2007, the Station House Officer/Sub Inspector of Police, Yemmiganur Town Police Station, appeared to have submitted a report stating that there was just a wordy quarrel between the two groups and that no incident occurred as stated by either party and it is also true that Cr.No.102 of 2007 was permitted to be referred as false by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adoni. However, a perusal of the final report itself shows that there was an incident on 08.07.2007 at about 1.15 p.m., when one Telugu Gopal picked up a quarrel with Telugu Lakshmi in an intoxicated mood followed by a serious wordy quarrel between Telugu Lakshmi and Mala Munemma as described in the final report itself. It is further seen from the material papers enclosed to the Criminal Petition that an identical final report supposed to be signed by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adoni in Cr.No.101 of 2007 did not appear to have been signed by him. While it is seen from the First Information Report in Cr.No.101 of 2007 that specific allegations were made by Mala Munemma against the petitioners herein about the committal of the alleged offences, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adoni filed a charge sheet in the said crime on completion of investigation. It is also to be noted that the charge sheet involves an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which a Sub Divisional Police Officer alone is competent to investigate under the Act and Rules framed thereunder. Any opinion expressed by the Sub Inspector Police, concerning Cr.No.102 of 2007 could not have been therefore of any competence or relevance for the investigation by an officer competent to investigate under the Special statute. The charge sheet leading to P.R.C.No.4 of 2009 filed in Cr.No.101 of 2007 was the result of the investigation by an officer of such competence, and in an enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with very restricted and limited scope, any deep fact finding enquiry as to the truth of the allegations in the charge sheet or the denials of the petitioner of the same in the Criminal Petition or the effect of the conclusions of the Sub Inspector of Police in the connected crime cannot be made. It is not a case where ex facie it can be said that the prosecution of the petitioners herein can amount to an abuse of process of law. In fact this Court in Crl.P.No.7597 of 2007 refused to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.101 of 2007 at the instance of the petitioners herein and the learned Judge noted that the Police have already filed a final report on the complaint and counter complaint that both the cases were false but still observed that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and it is not a case for discharge in Cr.No.101 of 2007. There can be said to be no change of circumstances requiring this Court to come to any different opinion on facts than that was taken by the learned Judge and, in the circumstances, the inherent jurisdiction available only in the rarest of rare cases cannot be made available to the petitioners, while no expression of opinion on the truth or otherwise of the claims of either party is being made to avoid any prejudice to either party in the trial of the case. Sri B.Vijaya Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the direction given by this Court in Crl.P.No.7597 of 2007 that the petitioners shall not be arrested till the filing of the charge sheet, if any, while all the other proceedings can go on and, requests that in view of the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, any arrest of the petitioners, at this stage, and their confinement in judicial custody may not be required and appropriate directions be given in that regard. It is well settled that arrest during investigation is not mandatory but optional to be resorted to by the investigating officer only when he finds that such apprehension is essential for the investigation being conducted. Now that the investigation is completed and the case is before the Court, it is always open to the accused to surrender themselves before the concerned Court and make a request for release on bail, which request can be believed to be considered by the concerned Court with all the expedition and urgency that such a request deserves and the concerned Court can be requested to attend to such request for bail accordingly. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed, but if the petitioners surrender before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur in P.R.C.No.4 of 2009 on its file and make a request for grant of bail, the said Court shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law on merits within forty eight hours of making such a request. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 24th July 2009 KH