HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.7143 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, 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 information said to have been furnished by the Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station on 22-07-2009 does not disclose as to why Cr.No.162 of 1999 under Sections 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code was referred by the police as “Mistake of Fact” on 30-03-2000. But, it obviously shows that the second respondent reported to the police then also probably making similar allegations against the petitioner as now claimed by her again in her private complaint to the Court. It is true that in the private complaint filed by the second respondent, it was not specifically stated that a formal marriage has taken place between both the accused in the private complaint, but there cannot be said to be absence of any reasonable basis for the grievance of the second respondent, when she claims that the second accused was projected as the wife of the first accused in the wedding card and by her cohabitation with the first accused. The copy of the sworn statement of the second respondent before the Magistrate shows that in the sworn statement, she specifically alleged that both the accused were married and are living together. Whether the second respondent will be able to prove the alleged second marriage, which amounts to an offence punishable under Section 494 IPC against both the accused in the criminal case or not, is a question of fact into which this court is not inclined to enter in a summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Inherent jurisdiction is available only in the rarest of rare cases and not as a matter of course and as the allegations of the second respondent and the denials of the petitioner involved disputed questions of fact, such jurisdiction, which has to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection, cannot be taken recourse to conclude of any such disputed questions of fact. Therefore, the Criminal Petition cannot succeed. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 09-09-2009 Ksn