IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6632 of 2009 Between: Smt. S. Vanaja .. Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Respondents Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the FIR No.216 of 2009, dated 24-7-2009 of Town IV Police Station, Nizamabad. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. Papa Rao Goud, Advocate for the petitioner and of the Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri B. Papa Rao Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent. No notice is being ordered to the 2nd respondent, as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The criminal petition and the material papers on record show that the 2nd respondent gave a written report to the police making allegations against the petitioner about collecting Rs.10,000/- for settling the disputes between the 2nd respondent and her husband. The 2nd respondent further alleged that the petitioner is making demand for a further sum of Rs.10,000/-. In the statements of the witnesses recorded by police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure during the course of investigation, the same allegations appear to have been reiterated. The petitioner claims innocence of the offences and she also claims that she was falsely implicated in criminal cases due to rivalries with one Vijayalakshmi, Vice President of Mahila Mandali. The claims of the petitioner that cases are foisted, raise questions of fact and the allegations and the counter-allegations about such disputed questions of fact, have to be investigated into by the statutory investigating agency and have to be considered on merits on oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it, by the Court of competent jurisdiction, if the police were to file a report before such Court on completion of investigation. This Court cannot indulge in a deep fact finding probe, in a restricted and summary proceeding in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. As the criminal petition only raises questions of fact and no other issue, the criminal petition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-08-2009 Svv