IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2888 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.719/2006 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ------------ P.KUMARASWAMY, S/O. PADMANABHA PILLAI, PADMAKUMAR BHAVAN, NRA-8, NILAMEL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.ALOYSIUS, TREESIUS HOME, NRA-14, NILAMEL, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2888 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The case has now reached only the stage of defence evidence, though it is registered as early as in 2006. At the defence stage the petitioner placed a long list of witnesses. Out of the same, seven witnesses were sought to be summoned. The learned Magistrate applied his mind and took the view that witnesses 1 to 4 need not be summoned. Claiming to be aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. The impugned order must certainly be recognised as an Interlocutory order. Challenge against an Interlocutory order is pro-scribed by the stipulation in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. in an appropriate case where interests of justice so demand this Court Crl.M.C.No. 2888 of 2008 2 has jurisdictional competence to insist that the petitioner is enabled to examine such witnesses. But such jurisdiction being an extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction cannot be lightly invoked. Normally and ordinarily the petitioner will have to wait till disposal of the case to challenge the interlocutory order along with the final order, if that be necessary. 3. The short question is whether the exercise of discretion under Section 254 Cr.P.C. is so grossly erroneous and results in failure or miscarriage of justice as to persuade this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. I shall carefully avoid any expression of opinion on merits about the alleged grievance of the petitioner, lest it might prejudice the rights of the petitioner at later stages. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner anxiously and having gone through the cross examination of the complainant, I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked at this stage of the proceedings. Crl.M.C.No. 2888 of 2008 3 5. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to assail the impugned order also, if the same is found to be necessary, along with the final order in the prosecution to be passed by the learned Magistrate. (R. BASANT) Judge tm