IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 16TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 551 of 2009() ------------------------------------ C.C. 1049/2003 OF JUDICIAL IST CLASS MAGISTRATE II, CHALAKKUDY. ......... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------- SUNIL KUMAR.N.S., S/O. SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, ANIKKATT EEDU, POOARATHI P.O. PALA. BY ADV. MR.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE -------------------------- 1. RAJAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, PARIYARAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PULIYILAPPARA DESOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, RP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.551 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.1,500/-. Cognizance has been taken. Trial has commenced. The case is at the stage of defence evidence. Notice of demand was served on the petitioner. It evoked no response whatsoever. At the stage of trial, it appears that a defence was taken that the cheue was lost from the possession of the petitioner and the same had gone into the hands of the complainant. The complainant has forged the cheque and misutilised the same, that appears to be the contention raised. The petitioner wanted the cheque to be sent to the expert. The application was rejected by the learned Magistrate holding that the attempt is only to protract the proceedings. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. He has hence come to this court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with the impugned order. Crl.M.C.No. 551/09 2 2. The impugned order is an interlocutory order. Law frowns upon attempts to challenge interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. Ordinarily and normally, a person aggrieved by an interlocutory order must wait till the proceedings are over and final order is passed to challenge such interlocutory order. This policy of the law is clearly reflected in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C which proscribes challenge against interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. Of course, the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available with this court can be invoked in an appropriate case in the interests of justice to interfere with such an interlocutory order also; but satisfactory, sufficient, compelling and exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. I shall not embark on a detailed discussion of the merits of the contentions lest it might sent unnecessary signals to the court while considering the defence of the petitioner later on merits. Suffice it to say that I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned order warrants interference invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction vested in this court. Crl.M.C.No. 551/09 3 3. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all appropriate and relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate in the course of the trial nor shall it fetter the rights of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order along with the final order to be passed in C.C.No.1049/2003. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a further submission that the petitioner had wanted the bank manager to be examined; but the presence of the bank manager has not been secured so far. It is for the petitioner to take necessary steps and request the court below to secure the presence of the said witness. Such request, needless to say, must be considered by the learned Magistrate and appropriate decision taken. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No. 551/09 4 Crl.M.C.No. 551/09 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008