IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4000 of 2008() ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/04/2008 IN CMP.NO.61/2007 IN ST.NO.245/2007 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRTE COURT-II, CHANGANACHERRY. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ SALEENA, MOIDEEN PARAMBIL, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONER & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUNJUMOL ROY, ROSHAN VILLA, KAKKAMTHODU, VAZHAPPALLY WEST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4000 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case has reached the defence stage. The petitioner filed an application to get the cheque examined by an expert. That petition was allowed on 11/1/2008. The petitioner did not take necessary steps. Fed up with the inaction of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate dismissed the prayer to forward the cheque to the expert by the impugned order dated 15/4/2008. The petitioner did not take any steps promptly to challenge that order. Long later, the petitioner has come to this court on 23/10/2008 with a prayer that the impugned order may be set aside and the petitioner may be granted the opportunity to get the cheque examined by the expert. 2. Contumacious latches on the part of the petitioner stare at the petitioner. The impugned order is an interlocutory order. The law frowns upon challenge against interlocutory orders during the pendency of proceedings and this policy of the Crl.M.C.No.4000/08 2 law is clearly reflected in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C which proscribes challenge against interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. In spite of and notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C, in an appropriate case, if the interests of justice so warrant compellingly, this court has the jurisdictional competence under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with the impugned order. But, in the facts and circumstances of this case and on the crucial facts that have already been adverted to by me, I am not persuaded to agree that the petitioner is entitled to challenge the order in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed. I may, however, hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order along with the final order if there is need to challenge the final order at later stages. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4000/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4000/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008