HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.6950 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Turaga 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 copy of the private complaint, the reference of which to the police resulted in the registration of the crime, shows that the de facto complainant/the second respondent herein made specific allegations against each accused about the different events on specified dates commencing from her gold ornaments being forcibly taken away by A-4 and A-5 and being kept under lock and key under their control till the incident on 03-08-2009 when the accused 1 to 6 were claimed to have threatened to send a divorce letter to the de facto complainant and marry accused No.1 with another girl when they visited the house of the second respondent’s parents. The truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the second respondent in the complaint are not for this court to go into in a restricted and summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the denials of the allegations by the petitioners in the present Criminal Petition cannot lead to any conclusive fact finding enquiry by this court. Any exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this court is available only in the rarest of rare cases. The claims of the petitioners may be factually true, but beyond the scope of the present enquiry and have to be left to be considered during further investigation by the statutory investigating agency and if they were to file any final report before the court of competent jurisdiction, by the said court on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it during trial. The alleged instigation by the second respondent to the first accused to separate from the joint family and the alleged understandings said to have been reached between the parties earlier are thus matters of fact and cannot lead to quashing of proceedings themselves. Learned counsel for the petitioners also expressed apprehension about the likelihood of the petitioners being apprehended and detained indefinitely. Any such apprehension can be answered by requesting the investigating agency, in the event of arrest of the petitioners during the course of investigation and the court concerned to act expeditiously in such a contingency. Therefore, while dismissing the Criminal Petition, the Station House Officer, Kulsumpura Police Station, Hyderabad, is directed, in the event of arrest of the petitioners/accused 2 to 6 in Cr.No.201 of 2009 on his file during the course of further investigation, to produce them before the court of competent jurisdiction forthwith without any delay and the said court of competent jurisdiction shall consider on merits, in accordance with law, any request of the petitioners for grant of bail on the same day on which such a request is made. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-09-2009 Ksn