HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7439 of 2009 Dated : 15.09.2009 Between : A.Srinivasulu ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7439 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri B.Sasibhushan Rao, 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 being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner relies on the interim stay granted in Crl.P.No.3519 of 2009, which was entertained by this Court at the instance of the petitioner and Smt.Siva Parvathi in respect of crime No.62 of 2009 of Allagadda Police Station, Kurnool District. The circumstances that prompted this Court to entertain said criminal petition No.3519 of 2009 or to grant an interim stay therein cannot be treated relevant in considering the merits of the present criminal petition. Crime No.72 of 2009 on the file of RIMS Police Station, Kadapa, was registered on the written report of the second respondent making serious allegations against the petitioner, who is claimed to have been married to her as per Christian rites on 25.06.2001, and through him she is claimed to have given birth to a daughter Divya Tejaswini now aged 7 years. The second respondent further alleged various acts of cruelty and harassment by the petitioner, who was alleged to have developed illicit intimacy with one Siva Parvathi. Further specific allegations were made by the second respondent against the petitioner about tarnishing the image of the second respondent attributing adulterous relationship to her with seven others. The truth or otherwise of the said allegations had to be permitted to be investigated into by the statutory investigating agency without any hindrance in the interests of justice and the copy of the first information report in crime No.62 of 2009 of Allagadda Police Station shows an incident on 11.04.2009 in which there was an attempt to kill the second respondent herein by the petitioner and another. The allegations in the said crime and the present crime cannot be considered to be overlapping and the learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to this Court entertaining the criminal petition for quashing of the proceedings at the instance of the ninth accused in this crime and granting interim stay in his favour. That may be due to the written report of the second respondent not attributing any specific overt acts or culpable conduct to the ninth accused, which cannot be relevant in considering the matter in respect of the prime accused. It cannot be said ex facie that the allegations made in the first information report are absurd and improbable on their face and do not even remotely attribute any offence against the petitioner. Therefore, the inherent jurisdiction, which is available only in rarest of rare cases cannot be invoked in the present case to stall the further investigation. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 15th September, 2009 SUR