THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.7614 of 2009 DATED:18.09.2009 Between: K.Srinu .. Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri D.Sudarshan Reddy, 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. Crime No.155 of 2009 of Bahadurpura Police Station, Hyderabad was registered on the written report of the second respondent alleging about a phone call from an auto driver threatening her with dire consequences and alleging kidnap of the petitioner herein and demanding Rs.10,000/- for relieving the petitioner. The second respondent further alleged that the petitioner went to her house and threatened her and her father and also abused her father to vacate his house and demanded to pay Rs.20,000/- which was spent by him towards his father’s ailments. The petitioner claims that the said report was given, leading to the registration of the crime, only to blackmail and harass him to submit himself to the wishes of the second respondent till the property disputes are settled. The petitioner also claims that they are living in the same building and they were not on talking terms and thus, what the Criminal Petition raises are questions of fact and the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the second respondent in her written report or the denials made by the petitioner in the present Criminal Petition including whether the petitioner has anything to do with the auto driver or not and whether the case is being foisted against him on account of property disputes or not or for any other reasons are questions to be gone into by the statutory investigating agency and if such agency were to file a charge sheet before the Court of competent jurisdiction, that Court has to enquire into these questions, during trial, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it. Ex facie it cannot be said that the written report of the second respondent does not even remotely indicate the possibility of attributing committal of offences under Sections 506 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code to the petitioner and as the summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be extended to conclusive determination of the facts and circumstances in controversy, the Criminal Petition cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 18th September 2009 KH