IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2007 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1928 Crl.MC.No. 757 of 2007() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.2074/06 IN CC.165/2005 of J.F.C.M - V, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------- P.PRASANTH, S/O.PONNUMUTHAN, NADUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KANJAMPAZHINJI, KANJAMPAZHINJI P.O BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE ---------------------------------- 1. L.STEPHEN, C.M.S.BHAVAN, KANJAMPAZHANJI, KANJAMPAZHANJI PO. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.No.757 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of March, 2007 ORDER The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I Act. The matter has reached at the stage of evidence. At the defence stage, the accused filed an application to send the cheque to the expert. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, copy of which is produced as Annexure-A, the petitioner has come to this Court. 2. I shall carefully avoid any unnecessary detailed discussions which would encumber the records. The fact that the cheque is drawn on a cheque leaf issued to the petitioner by his bank to operate his account is not disputed. Notice of demand though duly received and acknowledged did not admittedly evoke any response. A contention was raised in the course of trial that there was stealthy removal of blank cheque leaves from the premises of the accused by the complainant. Even after notice of demand was received, no complaint whatsoever was made before any authorities about such an alleged contumacious conduct on the part of the complainant. The learned Magistrate on a perusal of the signature in the cheque along with admitted signatures felt that they compare favourably. Crl.M.C.No.757 of 2007 2 3. I must note that I am called upon to exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Exceptional reasons must be shown to exist to justify any such invocation. The law frowns upon challenge raised against interlocutory orders. Section 397(2) Cr.P.C reflects this attitude of the law. Therefore ordinarily and normally, the interlocutory orders like the instant one will have to wait for their challenge along with the final orders to be passed in the prosecution. As stated earlier, I do not intend to express any opinion on merits. Suffice it to say that in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am unable to agree that there is any warrant for invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the petitioner’s right to challenge the impugned order along with final orders to be passed in the prosecution will remain unfettered by such dismissal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-