IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4673 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.NO. 4141/2008 IN CC.1137/2004 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA) .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- BADHARUDEEN RAWTHER, S/O.SULAIMAN RAWTHER, ARTHIYIL KIZHAKKATHIL, PORUVAZHY, AMBALAMTHUMBHAGAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. M.SHAJI, KAROOR THEKKATHIL, AMBALATHUMBHAGAM, PORUVAZHY.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM, R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 4673 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner is the sole accused in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Notice of demand was received. The same was replied to. Annexure-II is the reply. In Annexure-II reply it is significant that there is no specific denial of the signature in the cheque. In fact, a total reading of Annexure-II suggests that the attempt was to contend that the cheque had been handed over to some other person and the same has been misutilised by the complainant to stake a false claim. In the course of evidence, the complainant asserted that the cheque was filled up by the complainant and brought; but the signature was affixed in his presence. At the stage of defence evidence, the petitioner wanted the cheque to be forwarded to the expert for opinion on Crl.M.C. No. 4673 of 2008 -: 2 :- the genuineness of the signature appearing therein. That application was opposed by the complainant. The learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the prayer to forward the cheque to the expert. 2. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. The impugned order is an interlocutory order. It is now trite that ordinarily and normally an interlocutory order cannot be challenged in the course of the proceedings. Sec.397(2) Cr.P.C. makes it clear that there is an embargo against the revisional challenge of interlocutory orders. A person aggrieved by the interlocutory order must ordinarily wait for the culmination of the proceeding to mount a challenge against the interlocutory order if such challenge be necessary depending upon the final order passed in the prosecution where exceptional reasons must be there. This Court may be justified in an exceptional case in the interests of justice in invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. 3. I shall not embark on any detailed discussions on merits on the acceptability of the allegations or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, I am not persuaded to Crl.M.C. No. 4673 of 2008 -: 3 :- agree that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. deserves to be invoked in favour of the petitioner to interfere with the impugned order. I am satisfied that the petitioner must be relegated to challenge the impugned order if necessary along with the final order to be passed by the learned Magistrate in the prosecution. In coming to this conclusion, I take note of the circumstance that the complainant has no case that the other writings in the cheque were made by the petitioner herein. I do also note further that there is no specific denial of the signature appearing in the cheque in Annexure-II reply notice. I do also take note of the broad improbability that some one handed over an unsigned blank cheque for any tangible purpose to another in the course of a business transaction. 4. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any authentic final opinion on the dispute raised. Suffice it to say that I am persuaded to feel that this is an eminently fit case where the petitioner must be relegated to challenge the impugned order along with the final order to be passed if necessary and there is no justification or necessity to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Crl.M.C. No. 4673 of 2008 -: 4 :- Cr.P.C. 5. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I repeat that the specific observation that the petitioner's option to challenge the impugned order at later stages shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this petition. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge