IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 351 of 2009() -------------------------------------- C.M.P.2107/08 IN ST.NO.1113/06 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, VARKALA. ........................ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------------- VIJAYALAKSHMI.S, W/O.MOHANAN PILLAI, VEENAS HOUSE, AYANTHI, VETTUR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. S.SUNIL, 'HARIDEV'HOUSE, DHALAVAPURATH, CHERUNNIYOOR.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009 ALONG WITH CRL.MC.NO.377/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. Nos.351 & 377 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 ORDER The common petitioner – a woman, faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. There are two cheques involved for a total amount of Rs.45,000/-. The signatures in the cheques are admitted. Notice of demand, though duly received and acknowledged, did not admittedly evoke any response in writing. At the stage of trial, a contention was raised that the cheques were not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability; but were issued only as security as blank signed cheques in some earlier transactions. The matter reached the stage of defence evidence. The defence evidence was closed. Thereupon, an application was filed to re-open the evidence. An application was also filed to send the cheques to the expert Crl.M.C. Nos.351 & 377 of 2009 -: 2 :- for examination. 2. The learned Magistrate by the impugned orders rejected the prayer for re-opening the evidence and to send the cheques to the expert for examination. The learned Magistrate accepted the objections of the complainant that there was no just cause to send the cheques to the expert and the attempt was only to prolong and protract the trial. Accepting that contention of the respondent/complainant, both petitions were dismissed. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned orders. 3. What is the grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the denial of opportunity to the petitioner to get the cheques examined by an expert results in miscarriage of justice. 4. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction that I am called upon to invoke and exercise. I am called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter of course. Sufficient, satisfactory and compelling reasons must be shown to exist to justify the invocation of such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. 5. The law frowns upon the attempts to challenge interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings Crl.M.C. Nos.351 & 377 of 2009 -: 3 :- before the court concerned. Such policy of law is clearly reflected in Sec.397(2) Cr.P.C. which proscribes challenge against interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. Ordinarily and normally a person aggrieved by such interlocutory orders must wait till the proceedings are over and can challenge such interlocutory orders along with the final orders that are passed in the proceedings. Where exceptional reasons exist, this Court can of course invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to interfere with such interlocutory orders passed. 6. In this case, I take note of the admitted stand that notice of demand, though duly served, did not evoke any response. I have been taken through the cross-examination of the complainant and it is evident, as noted by the learned Magistrate, that a specific contention about the genuineness of the handwriting in the cheques was not specifically taken. A specific statement that the cheques are in the handwriting of the petitioner is not seen made by the complainant also. I am not delving deep into the controversies raised. I need only observe that I am not persuaded to agree that there is any reason or justification in the prayer to this Court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. If the petitioner is aggrieved Crl.M.C. Nos.351 & 377 of 2009 -: 4 :- by the impugned orders, he can certainly challenge the same along with the final order to be passed in S.T.No.1113/06 by the learned Magistrate, if such challenge by him be necessary. 7. In the result, these Crl.M.Cs. are dismissed; but subject to the observation that the impugned orders can also be challenged by the petitioner along with the final order to be passed by the learned Magistrate in S.T.No.1113/06. The dismissal of these Crl.M.Cs. will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to challenge such orders at later stages. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. Nos.351 & 377 of 2009 -: 5 :-