THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No. 7365 of 2009 Between: A. Gopinadh and two others ….Petitioners and The State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another …. Respondents CRIMINAL PETITION No.7366 of 2009 Between: Varahabhatla Satya Venkata Krishna Mohan, S/o.Venkata Rama Murthy and four others …. Petitioners and The State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another …. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 7365 and 7366 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri Rama Mohan Palanki, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent in both the cases. No notice is being ordered to the second respondent as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. As seen from the material papers on record, Crl.P.No.3935 of 2008 was filed by the 11th accused in the same crime with a request to quash the proceedings and the learned Judge by order dated 08.07.2008 noted that the second respondent alleged conspiracy between 25 accused and that there was exchange of notices prior to the complaint. The learned Judge while granting stay of arrest of the petitioner till filing of charge sheet directed that all such further proceedings shall go on. The learned Judge also further directed that the police have to thoroughly investigate into all the allegations. The said order of the learned Judge obviously indicating that the complaint is one, which requires a thorough investigation by the police, shows that the present request of the petitioners herein to quash the proceedings is not one, which can be straight away considered. The petitioners claim innocence of any offence. As the matter is still under investigation, the denials of the petitioners have to be left open to be investigated into and considered on merits by the investigating agency without expressing any opinion in these summary proceedings. The petitioners 1 and 2 are stated to be aged 70 and 60 years respectively. But the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that all the three petitioners already obtained bail and therefore, there is no need for any similar direction against arrest being considered in the present case as in Crl.P.No.3935 of 2008. It is seen from the material papers on record in Crl.P.No.7366 of 2009 that in Crl.P.No.6730 of 2009, this Court already granted anticipatory bail to petitioners 3 to 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners 1 and 2 were also released on bail as per the orders of the Court of session. Under the circumstances, the inherent jurisdiction, which is available only in rarest of rare cases, cannot be invoked on the disputed questions of fact and claims of innocence by the petitioners, which are to be allowed to be investigated into thoroughly by the statutory investigating agency without any interim interference. Hence, both the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. _______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J. Date: 14-09-2009 Rns