THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3063 of 2009 DATED:17.09.2009 Between: Mekhala Jayaraj and others .. Petitioners And The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., Vanasthalipuram, rep., by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.3063 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Ananth Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 petitioners are facing prosecution in C.C.No.548 of 2008 on the file of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet refers to a specific incident on 16.06.2008 on which day accused Nos.1 to 4 were alleged to have attempted to pour acid into the mouth of the second respondent herein. It is true that C.C.No.477 of 2008 on the file of the XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad had its origin in the report given by the first petitioner herein alleging an incident on 16.06.2008 when accused Nos.1 to 7 therein took away the second respondent from their house and another incident on 17.06.2008 when accused Nos.1 to 7 therein criminally trespassed into the house and threatened him and his family members etc. Thus, it is evident that an incident on 16.06.2008 is admitted in both the case and counter case regarding the sequence of events that happened at the residence of the first petitioner. As to who were the aggressors and who were the aggrieved has to be determined by the trial Court in the case and counter case, after full scale trial and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence in both the cases and on the allegation that C.C.No.548 of 2008 is a counterblast to C.C.No.477 of 2008, this Court cannot indulge in any deep fact finding enquiry to ascertain and determine as to who were at fault and whose conduct was culpable. The scope of a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is very restricted and the inherent jurisdiction is available only in the rarest of rare cases, which cannot be invoked herein. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. The determination of these two cases by the trial Court shall be uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th September 2009 KH