HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6484 of 2009 DATED:20.08.2009 Between: Mohd. Ibrahim Khan and others .. Petitioners And Mohd. Raheem Khan and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL PETITION No.6484 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri S.Sharath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor for second respondent. No notice is being ordered to the first respondent, as the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. In the private complaint filed by the first respondent, it is alleged that on 31.03.2007, A.1 to A.14 entered his land in Survey No.51/A/3 of an extent of Acs.4.32 guntas had broken the boundary kadies and by using criminal force, cut the Neem and Mango trees in the field and committed theft of the kadies and wood of the trees and attempted to kill the first respondent with knife, iron rods and sticks, while accused Nos.1 to 4 even tried to stab in the stomach of the first respondent. The first respondent alleged that his complaints to the police were of no avail and hence, he was filing the private complaint. The sworn statement of the complainant was recorded by the learned Magistrate, who ordered, on 3.10.2008, on perusal of the complaint and the sworn statement, to issue notice to the respondents as a prima facie case is found by him under Sections 324, 447, 506, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the said order contending that the statement of the complainant does not disclose the alleged offences and that there were no overt acts attributed, no seizure effected, no medical evidence produced and no injury found on the first respondent, but still the learned Magistrate was carried away by the statement of the complainant. The petitioners, therefore, desire the further proceedings to be quashed. However, it is seen from the material on record that the allegations of the complainant/first respondent herein are denied by the petitioners and the controversy thus raises disputed questions of fact. It is well settled that this Court in a summary enquiry under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, will not conduct a deep fact finding enquiry into such disputed questions of fact. Whether the land in question belonged to the first respondent, whether the incident as alleged had occurred and whether the alleged acts of A.1 to A.14 amount to the offences alleged against them or for that matter any other offences punishable under law are matters to be gone into and decided by the trial Court on the oral and documentary evidence placed before it. Any premature termination of the criminal proceedings at this stage determining the sufficiency or otherwise of the statement of the first respondent for initiating criminal proceedings will not be in the interests of justice and therefore, the inherent jurisdiction, which is available only in the rarest of rare cases, cannot be considered to be available in the present case. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 20th August 2009 KH