HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7641 of 2009 Dated : 18.09.2009 Between : Shivarathri Mallaiah & another ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. & others ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7641 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners in person are present before the Court and they are heard and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent Nos.1 and 2, is also heard. No notice is being ordered to the third and fourth respondents as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioners in their oral submissions stated that the fourth respondent engaged their earth mover on hire and failed to pay the hire charges of Rs.2,76,500/-, which they demanded. They also submitted that the fourth respondent issued a cheque for Rs.2 lakhs towards the same and the cheque was returned dishonoured thrice when presented in the bank. The petitioners claim that when they demanded the fourth respondent to pay their dues, he manipulated the entire story and got a false case foisted against them and that consequently they were arrested and produced before the Court and were being harassed by the Police. The first information report in crime No.556 of 2009 of Sanath Nagar Police Station, Cyberabad, was registered on the complaint of the third respondent about the fourth respondent being kidnapped by the petitioners. The matter is under investigation and the truth or otherwise of the allegations of the respondents herein or the claims of the petitioners has to be established during investigation, but not in a restricted and summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The remand case diary dated 28.08.2009 shows that the statutory investigating agency had found reason to suspect the commission of offence under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and two others and under such circumstances any interim intervention with the further investigation will prejudice the interests of justice. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, the parties have to be relegated to the process of further investigation by the statutory investigating agency and if they were to file a report under Section 173 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners or others, to the trial Court, which will determine the matter on merits basing on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it and as this petition raises disputed of questions of fact, the inherent jurisdiction available only in rarest of rare cases cannot be invoked. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 present in person are informed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 18th September, 2009 SUR