HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6840 of 2009 Dated : 28.08.2009 Between : Shaik Gani Ahmed ….. Petitioner V. The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6840 of 2009 O R D E R : Heard Sri N.G.K.Nair, 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 is facing prosecution in C.C.No.326 of 2006 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code after investigation into crime No.79 of 2005 on the file of the Women Protection Cell, Central Crime Station, Hyderabad, on the complaint of the second respondent herein. The charge sheet states that the investigation had revealed that the petitioner and the second respondent are legally wedded husband and wife married on 05.12.2004 and that there was harassment and ill-treatment of the wife by the husband for dowry of Rs.1 lakh with her ultimately being necked out from the marital home on 18.01.2005. The petitioner claims herein that he intended to marry again at the age of 65 years as he had none to take care of him and ever since the marriage with the second respondent all her family members tried to occupy the house and also misappropriated costly household articles. The petitioner also claims that ultimately he had to divorce the second respondent on pronouncement of ‘Talaq’ on 20.01.2005 and she was also permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner towards Mehar and maintenance during the Iddat period. The petitioner, therefore, claims that the complaint and charge sheet are abuse of process of law. Thus, it is seen that what the petitioner claims is based on sequence of events as claimed by him while what the statutory investigating agency found on the complaint of the second respondent regarding the marital life of the parties is something different. The allegations and counter allegations, therefore, raise disputed questions of fact and in a restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court will not go into such disputed questions of fact by conducting any deep probe. The inherent jurisdiction is available only in rarest of rare cases, but not as a matter of course and the disputed questions of fact are better left to be determined by the Trial Court on merits. Hence, the criminal petition is unsustainable and is dismissed. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 28th August, 2009 sur