HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7800 of 2009 Dated : 23.09.2009 Between : Gollapalli Bujji @ Narasimha Murthy & others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7800 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents. The first information report in crime No.131 of 2009 of Eleswaram Police Station of East Godavari District was registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 342 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on the written complaint of the second respondent, who is the Tahasildar and Mandal Executive Magistrate as well as the Village Habitation Officer of Peddanapalli, Eleswaram Mandal. Bereft of minor details, the allegations of the second respondent are that the first accused phoned to other villagers when he was inspecting the ration shop, and on gathering of the villagers, he started raising slogans and a fearful atmosphere was created preventing the Tahasildar and the staff from inspecting the ration shop. The Tahasildar named the remaining 18 accused, who have acted under the leadership of the first accused, and he specified that all the 19 accused abused him in filthy language, which was extracted in the first information report, and which contained abuses with reference to the caste of the Tahasildar also. The Tahasildar, who claims to be belonging to a Scheduled Caste, requested for action against the first accused and the remaining 18 accused for preventing him and the staff from performing their duties for about three hours and for abusing him in the name of his caste. The written report in Telugu is sought to be interpreted as giving an impression about the abuses emanating from the first accused only and not the other accused. But, the contents of the written complaint did not appear to suggest unambiguously that the allegations of the Tahasildar about the abuses in the name of his caste were uttered by the first accused only and not the other accused. The petitioners also referred in the criminal petition to the news reports relating to the incident. But, no such reports in media can form the basis for any conclusions in a judicial proceeding by themselves. The crime alleged is under investigation and serious allegations of interfering with the performance of the official duties by the Tahasildar shall be allowed to be investigated into by the statutory investigating agency without any interim intervention by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. As the issues raised by the petitioners involve pure questions of fact and as the truth or otherwise of the allegations of the second respondent and the denials of the petitioners cannot be successfully determined in a summary enquiry, they have to be left open for determination either during investigation or during trial. Therefore, the inherent jurisdiction available only in rarest of rare cases does not appear available in the present case. Hence, the petition has to fail. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 23rd September, 2009 SUR