HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7642 of 2008 Dated : 28.08.2009 Between : T.Venkateswar Rao ….. Petitioner V. The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7642 of 2008 O R D E R : Heard Sri P.Vara Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the first respondent, and Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the second respondent. The petitioner is the first accused in P.R.C.No.43 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District, arising out of the charge sheet filed by the statutory investigating agency on investigation into crime No.85 of 2008 of Mellacheruvu Police Station under Sections 366 and 344 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner and the defacto complainant Tumuluri Srinivas Rao are brothers and it is alleged that after partition the petitioner desired to get the properties that fell to the share of Srinivas Rao also as Srinivas Rao had no children and forcibly took Srinivas Rao to his house at Kodad on a motor cycle on 03.06.2008 and confined in a room for 23 days up to 27.06.2008. The charge sheet further alleges that signatures of Srinivas Rao were forcibly taken on various papers before releasing him and that the investigation disclosed the contents of the report of Srinivas Rao to be probable. The police examined not only 3 circumstantial witnesses, but also cited 2 persons, who are panch witnesses to be also eye witnesses. What the petitioner claims herein is that the second accused T.Narsimha Rao was deleted from the charge sheet and that the panch witnesses were not the eye witnesses. The petitioner further claims that there is variance between the earliest version, the charge sheet and the statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner also relies on the improbability of the family members not making any efforts to search for Srinivas Rao for 23 days and denies any incident as alleged having ever happened. Thus, it is seen that what the petitioner is relying on are questions of fact which have to be determined during the trial and similarly the claims of the petitioner about the delay of 56 days in giving a report to the police and the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code not having been satisfied are also questions which are better left for appreciation by the trial Court. What is the effect of the delay in registration of first information report on the reliability and acceptability of the version of the prosecution will be properly appreciated only on the entire oral and documentary evidence being placed before the trial Court and not in a summary proceeding like the present one. Any deep probe into disputed questions of fact is not within the province of exercise of inherent jurisdiction, which is available only in rarest of rare cases and which has to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection. The case is yet to be committed to the Court of Session and both at the time of committal by the learned Magistrate and at the time of consideration by the Court of Session as to what charges have to be properly framed, there shall be definitely a close perusal of the entire material on record to consider whether the ingredients of an offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code or any other offence with which the petitioner is charged, are attracted. He need not apprehend being accused of any offence in the absence of any ingredients of such offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code or any other provision. Either the learned Magistrate or the Court of Session would not necessarily make the petitioner answerable for any such non existent offence. Under the circumstances, the petition does not appear to be sustainable and is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 28th August, 2009 sur