IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4742 of 2008() ----------------------------------- CRMP.1948/2008 of SPECIAL COURT (SP/CBI)-II, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/A1: ----------------------- K.S.ANIYAN, S/O.K.R.SRIDHARAN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT C-9, GCDA NIG FLAT, KARSHAKA ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------- THE CBI/SPE, COCHIN UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOODIRI,S.C.FOR C.B.I PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.4742 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the 1st accused facing indictment in a prosecution, inter alia, under Section 13 of the P.C Act before the Special Judge, (SPE/C.B.I)-II, Ernakulam. The case is at the defence stage. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application as Crl.M.P.No.1948 of 2008 to summon 6 documents. The petitioner only wanted the 6 documents to be summoned. The application was opposed. The learned Special Judge considered in detail the prayer for summoning each of the 6 documents. Document No.2 was permitted to be summoned. But document Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6, it was held, need not be summoned. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order. 2. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this Court while exercising the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The challenge is against an interlocutory order. Law frowns upon challenge against interlocutory orders during the pendency of proceedings. This policy of law is reflected clearly in Crl.M.C. No.4742 of 2008 2 Section 397(2) Cr.P.C, which bars challenge against interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. 3. The learned Special Judge, it is evident from the impugned order, has considered the relevance of each of these 6 documents. He has come to the conclusion that while document No.2 deserves to be summoned, document Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are not relevant or significant as to justify issue of processes. 4. Detailed reasons have been adverted to in the order (See paragraphs 9 – 12 of the impugned order). 5. It is not necessary for me now to consider the challenge raised against the impugned order in detail. I need and I am called upon only to consider whether the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction deserves to be invoked to interfere with the impugned order. Ordinarily and normally the challenge against such an order like the instant one must wait until the final orders are passed and challenge, if necessary against such order, can be mounted in the appeal, if such an appeal becomes necessary. I am, in these circumstances, not persuaded to agree that the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction deserves to be invoked. Crl.M.C. No.4742 of 2008 3 6. The learned Standing counsel for the C.B.I. submits that the Presiding Officer, who had heard the evidence, is about to retire on superannuation from service on 31.12.2008 and according to the complainant/State the attempt is to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. As stated earlier, it is not necessary for me to finally pronounce on the sustainability of the impugned order. I only take the view that the order does not deserve interference by invoking the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-