HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.1369 of 2009 Dated : 27.08.2009 Between : Rajeshwar @ Raja ….. Petitioner a n d 1) I.Nagamani 2) The State of A.P. ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.1369 of 2009 ORDER: None appeared for the petitioner like on the earlier occasion before the summer vacation, 2009. Notice before admission ordered on 05.03.2009 appears to have been served as seen from the postal acknowledgment filed into the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But, none appeared for the first respondent. Arguments of Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for the second respondent are heard. The criminal petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner and the first respondent are not husband and wife and that photographs taken in connection with a drama performance and the visit by the first respondent to the house of accused Nos.2 and 3 were misused. Whether the first respondent is the wife of the petitioner or not and whether she was only taking advantage of any photographs taken for some other purpose on different occasions as stated by the petitioner are matters, which have to be investigated into by the statutory investigating agency and if such agency files a report before the Court of competent jurisdiction, for the said Court to go into on the oral and documentary evidence to be placed before it. This Court acting under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be converted into a fact finding forum on disputed questions of fact. The written report on the basis of which the first information report was registered was clear and evident that the first respondent alleges to have married the petitioner at a temple and she further alleges to have been subjected to such conduct as amounting to committal of an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by the accused. Preventing investigation into such allegations on the denials of the petitioner will not be within the scope of the inherent jurisdiction which is available only in rarest of rare cases and which jurisdiction has to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection. Accordingly, the criminal petition does not appear sustainble and it is dismissed. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 27th August, 2009 SUR