HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6139 of 2009 Dated : 11.08.2009 Between : Smt.M.Pushpa & 2 others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6139 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri B.Gangadhar Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel, who entered appearance on behalf of 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 petitioners are facing prosecution in C.C.No.1008 of 2009 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Kukatpally, Miyapur, under Sections 323, 506 and 504 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code after investigation by the Police into the private complaint filed by the second respondent herein, which was referred to them for investigation and report, by the concerned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations made are about the disputes having the background of a borrowal of Rs.90,000/- by the petitioners 1 and 2 and there being two incidents on 13.08.2008. The petitioners were alleged to have caused injuries to the mason and to have abused the second respondent and her family members in unparliamentary language and to have threatened them in the presence of the locality people. They were also alleged to have caught hold of the neck of the second respondent and the second petitioner was alleged to have kicked the second respondent in the abdomen. What the petitioners claim in this criminal petition is that they are innocent of the offences and that in fact the second respondent beat the first petitioner on 13.08.2008 and on the report of the petitioners, the Police referred the first petitioner to hospital in M.L.C.No.3854. The petitioners also claimed that on the intervention of the Police, the matter was compromised resulting in a letter by the second respondent on 06.01.2009. The petitioners also relied on various other circumstances, which may make the allegations in the charge sheet unacceptable and unreliable. It is, thus, seen that it is a case of allegations against the petitioners in the charge sheet in pursuance of the investigation by the statutory investigating agency and the denials of the same and counter allegations by the petitioners about their being aggrieved by the acts of the second respondent. The background for the incident as alleged by the second respondent is also denied by the petitioners and these are the disputed questions of fact, which have to be gone into on merits and decided by the trial Court on the strength of the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it during the trial. In a restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot indulge in any deep fact finding enquiry and cannot conclude on the acceptability and reliability of the allegations made in the criminal proceedings. The inherent jurisdiction available only in rarest of rare cases, therefore, cannot be availed by the petitioners and hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, the criminal petition has to fail. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 11th August, 2009 SUR