HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5831 of 2009 DATED:05.08.2009 Between: Burugula Bhoopal Reddy and another .. Petitioner And State of A.P., through P.S.Shadnagar Represented by Public Prosecutor of High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another .. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.5831 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.Dhananjaya, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who entered appearance 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. Cr.No.283 of 2009 of Shadnagar Police Station was registered on the complaint of the second respondent alleging that the petitioners herein physically and psychologically harassed the deceased Swapna, daughter of the second respondent for additional dowry, which led to the girl committing suicide on 19.06.2009. After registration of the First Information Report against the husband and his parents, the statutory investigating agency investigated into the matter and in the remand case diary, dated 25.06.2009 under which the husband was produced before the Court for judicial custody, the investigating agency stated that the investigation is still pending and the present petitioners are yet to be apprehended. The investigating agency appears to be ex facie of the opinion that the present petitioners are also involved in the crime. The petitioners claimed that the deceased, the first accused and their children are residing elsewhere, while the petitioners are residing in Chandrainguda village of Kothur Mandal since two years and the petitioners have nothing to do with the affairs of the family of the deceased and the first accused. They also claimed that they never harassed for additional dowry and never subjected the deceased to cruelty. These are questions of fact which are in dispute and have to be investigated into by the Police for finding out the truth and placing the same before the trial Court by way of a police report. Any premature expression of opinion on the presence or absence of any case against the petitioners at this stage will prejudice the rights and interests of the second respondent and the prosecution. While the learned counsel for the petitioners produced a copy of the Household Card in support of the claim of separate residence of the petitioners, which may be true but which may still not by itself indicate the parents of the husband not being part of any demand for additional dowry. Inherent jurisdiction is available only in the rarest of rare cases and has to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection and it should not be used to scuttle the investigation at the inception when disputed questions of fact are involved. Therefore, without any expression of opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 5th August 2009 KH