HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6615 of 2009 Dated : 25.08.2009 Between : B.Srinivasa Rao & 5 others ….. Petitioners a n d The State of A.P. and another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6615 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for 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. P.R.C.No16 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsaraopet, was the result of the investigation by the statutory investigating agency into crime No.199 of 2005 of Narsaraopet Town Police Station. The investigation was stated to have disclosed that A.1 and A.7 were married earlier and were blessed with two children, but with a view to grab the properties of the father of the second respondent, accused Nos.1 to 6 conspired and made the first accused to develop friendship with the second respondent. Then, the various overt acts alleged in the charge sheet were committed by A.1 to A.6 leading to the performance of the marriage between the second respondent and the first accused at Vykuntapuram temple, Tenali, on 01.07.2005. The charge sheet further revealed that the first accused got the marriage registered on 02.07.2005 and on the subsequent report by the second respondent to the police, the crime was registered and investigated into for trapping the second respondent under the guise of marriage, kidnapping her, cheating her and criminally intimidating her. What the petitioners claim herein is that they are innocent of all the offences and the biased investigation at the instance of the parents of the second respondent, who were opposed to the marriage, is improbablised by the marriage photos, which disclosed the second respondent to have participated in the marriage ceremony happily and voluntarily. While the petitioners referred to interim stay granted in favour of the seventh petitioner in Crl.P.No.7214 of 2007, they claimed that the proceedings against them are an abuse of process of law. The contentions raised by the petitioners are thus, denials of the allegations made by second respondent in the written report and consequentially confirmed by the statutory investigating agency in the charge sheet. The questions raised are thus disputed questions of fact and whether the version of the second respondent is true or the version of the petitioners is true is for the trial Court to determine on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it during the trial, but not for this Court to go into by way of any deep fact finding enquiry in a restricted summary proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the seventh accused, who is not a member of the family of the petitioners, altogether stands on a different footing and can have no substantial bearing on the continuance of the prosecution against the petitioners herein. This case thus, does not appear to be one where the inherent jurisdiction available only in rarest of rare cases should be exercised. Hence, the criminal petition is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 25th August, 2009 SUR