IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4752 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 513/95 IN CRMP.10235/2008 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.LATE HAJI P.V.KUNHAHAMMED, AGED 53 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, (ADMINISTRATION), KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (SPE), KOCHI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4752 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 2nd accused and he faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 323 and 465 I.P.C. The case has had a chequered career. It has travelled from the lowest to the highest court many times. Now there is a direction for time bound disposal. 313 examination is over. At the stage of defence evidence, the petitioner filed an application to recall some witnesses. The prayer was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. The same was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge also rejected the challenge. Undaunted, the petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the impugned orders and to direct recalling of the witnesses at the defence stage. 2. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction that I am called upon to invoke and exercise. Witnesses have already been examined on oath. The Crl.M.C. No.4752 of 2008 2 petitioner has had opportunity to cross examine such witnesses. In this much belated stage, an application is filed to recall the witnesses. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by a detailed order, adverting to all relevant circumstances, has come to the conclusion that the prayer for recalling cannot be allowed. The court of revision has considered revisional challenge and has turned down the same. 3. The extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is to be invoked sparingly and in exceptional cases in aid of justice. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders by invoking such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. The law frowns against the challenge against interlocutory orders passed in the course of a pending proceedings. This policy of law is reflected clearly in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C, which proscribes the challenge of interlocutory orders during the pendency of the original proceedings. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner in this case must be relegated to challenge the impugned concurrent orders if necessary along with the final order that may be passed if such Crl.M.C. No.4752 of 2008 3 challenge be necessary. At the moment and with the available inputs, I find no reason to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. 5. This Crl.M.C is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-