HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.7314 and 7315 of 2009 Dated : 14.09.2009 Between : M.Ananthamma ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition Nos.7314 and 7315 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri M.Achutha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petitions, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor for both the respondents in both the petitions. In both the cases, on the report of the Tahasildar, Nawabpet, Mahabubnagar District, crimes were registered against the petitioner alleging that even after the possession was taken under panchanama and the High Court has passed order of Status Quo in W.P.M.P.No.28475 of 2008 in W.P.No.22070 of 2008 on 14.10.2008, the petitioner still violated the said order of Status Quo by trespassing into the land in question and either planted mango saplings or ploughed with a tractor bearing No.AP 21 HO 244 respectively. What the petitioner contends is that she is the assignee of the land in question and that after issuance of final patta certificate she developed the land and raised a mango garden and is also raising other crops. She claims that she questioned the cancellation of the patta certificate by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, in the writ petition in which the Status Quo order was passed by this Court. The petitioner claims that she was continuing in possession by the time of order of Status Quo and that she did not violate the orders of this Court and was in fact continuing to possess the land in pursuance of the order of this Court. The claim of the Tahasildar, Nawabpet, is that much prior to the order of Status Quo, the possession was so taken under panchanama. As to whether the possession was so taken under a panchanama or whether the possession continued to be with the petitioner is a disputed question of fact and notwithstanding the question of cancellation of patta certificate being the subject matter of the writ petition, the matter in dispute in this criminal petition is as to who was in actual possession of the land by the time of the alleged incident and whether the taking of possession under the panchanama or otherwise is in tune with the order of Status Quo of this Court in the writ petition. These are essentially questions of fact and in a restricted enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court cannot come to any final conclusion about the said disputed questions of fact. The inherent jurisdiction available only in rarest of rare cases and not as a matter of course has to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection. The present case is one where the issues involved are pure questions of fact. Hence, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked. Accordingly, both the criminal petitions are dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 14th September, 2009 SUR