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. 388 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.150/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ V.A.ROCKY, SON OF ANTONY, VADAKKETHALA HOUSE, KURIACHIRA, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.MANU TOM RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.V.I.VAKKACHAN, S/O.ITTIMATHEW, VALIKODATH, MANAGING PARTNER, JOHNSON ENTERPRISES, PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SRI.P.J.PRADEEP, S/O.JOHN PALOKKARAN, P.O.CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SMT. DAISY GEORGE, D/O.VETTUKANAKKUDY CHAKKUNI, RESIDING AT AYMURI, PERUMBAVOOR- PRESENT ADDRESS:W/O.P.V.GEORGE, PARAKKADAN HOUSE, EAST POTTA, CHALAKUDY. 4. SMT.LAILA ITTOOP, D/O.J.JOHN PALOKKARAN, RESIDING AT CHELAND, KOTHAMANGALAM. 5. SRI.STANLEY JOHN, S/O.KANIMANGALATHUKARAN JOHN, UNITY ROAD, P.O.KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR – 6. 6. SRI.K.V.THOMAS KAREDAN, ADVOCATE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB FOR R7 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 388 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec468 IPC. The crux of the allegations, it is submitted, is that a forged partnership deed has been created in which the petitioner is purported to have signed. A private complaint was filed as early as in 1997. The same was referred to the police under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. The police, after investigation, submitted a refer report. Dissatisfied with the refer report, the petitioner filed a protest complaint. Cognizance was taken on the basis of that protest complaint and the case was numbered as C.C. No.150/00. To cut a long story short, the trial commenced only in 2007. All steps are now complete. The matter stands posted to 28/1/09 for pronouncement of judgment. Crl.M.C. No. 388 of 2009 -: 2 :- 2. At this juncture, the petitioner has come to this Court. The petitioner complains that three applications filed by the petitioner to re-open the case, to direct the accused and two others to produce a document and to issue a search warrant to seize the document were all dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The document sought to be seized and produced is the partnership deed allegedly forged. Copies of the orders are not produced. The learned counsel submits that copies have not been made available to the petitioner yet. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the denial of an opportunity to the petitioner to re-open the case and to ensure that the allegedly forged document is made available to court does amount to denial of justice to him. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the orders passed in the three applications. It is prayed that the pronouncement of the judgment may be stayed and the petitioner may be given an opportunity to produce the copies of the orders in the three applications. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I take note that cognizance was taken as early as in 2000. Parties had gone to trial. The matter stands posted for Crl.M.C. No. 388 of 2009 -: 3 :- judgment tomorrow. The prayer now is to make further efforts to secure production of the document which is allegedly forged. I fail to understand how the petitioner could have commenced the trial if the petitioner felt that this is such an important document which ought to be made available. It is not necessary for me to go into all those details. The impugned orders are in any view of the matter only interlocutory orders. It is now trite that law frowns upon and attempts to challenge interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings before the court concerned. Ordinarily and normally a person aggrieved by the interlocutory orders must wait till the disposal of the case to challenge such interlocutory orders along with the final order/judgment. This policy of law is clearly reflected in Sec.397(2) Cr.P.C. which proscribes challenge against the interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. 5. Having rendered my anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not persuaded to agree that it is necessary at this eleventh hour to invoke the jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner's option to challenge the impugned orders along with the final orders/judgment in C.C.No.150/00 (if the same be necessary) shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. The Crl.M.C. No. 388 of 2009 -: 4 :- petitioner shall be entitled to advance all contentions against the impugned orders when he challenges the final order, if he finds it necessary, in C.C.No.150/00. 6. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge