THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7481 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri A. Hariprasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the Additional Public Prosecutor, who entered appearance 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 material on record shows that Crime No.104 of 2009 on the file of Podalakuru Police Station was registered against the second respondent and others for the offences allegedly committed under Sections 324 and 427 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on 29.06.2009. That report was given on the same day. It was much later that a private complaint was filed before the Court by the second respondent and it was referred to the Police for investigation and report on 22.08.2009, on which Crime No.115 of 2009 of Podalakuru Police Station was registered against the petitioners. The petitioners are mainly relying upon the delay in filing the private complaint and also the improbability of the third petitioner participating in the crime at an advanced stage of pregnancy and of fourth petitioner being a student participating in the crime. It is thus evident that though the private complaint was filed with substantial delay after the incident, there are case and counter case, which are being investigated into by the statutory investigating agency. The case in Crime No.115 of 2009 is alleged to be involving offences punishable under Sections 354, 324, 323, 427 and 447 I.P.C. and the truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be the subject of any deep fact finding probe before this Court in this restricted enquiry. The improbability of the third and fourth petitioners participating in the crime is also a matter of fact to be gone into by the investigating agency and not this Court in the summary proceeding. It is well settled that the genuineness or acceptability or dependability of the prosecution allegations involved are not open to be conclusively determined in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only in rarest of rare cases and not in cases where disputed questions of fact are involved. Either on the ground of delay or on the ground of any improbability of participation of third and fourth petitioners in the registered crime, the further proceedings cannot be straightaway quashed. However, learned counsel for the petitioners is apprehending indefinite detention during further investigation. But the provisions of Cr.P.C. mandate the investigating agency to produce arrested persons before the Magistrate concerned within twenty-four hours and any request for grant of bail will always be considered by the Magistrate concerned at the earliest with all the urgency and sympathy that such request deserves. Appropriate direction can be given for compliance with the procedure prescribed by law in regard to the apprehension of the petitioners. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. But in case the petitioners or any of them are arrested in Crime No.115 of 2009 of Podalakuru Police Station, they shall be produced forthwith before the Court of competent jurisdiction and in case of any request of the petitioners or any of them, on production before the Court, for bail, such Court shall consider and determine such request on the same day on which it is made. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 16th September, 2009 GHN