IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 445 of 2009() ------------------------ (C.M.P.NO.5467/06 IN S.T.NO.14/06 OF J.F.C.M COURT-III, KANJIRAPPALLY) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------- K S SKARIA, KIZHEKKE POOVATHERIL HOUSE KUNNAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL RESPONDENT/ DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------- 1. JACOB THOMAS @ SAJI KUZHIKKATTU HOUSE ELAMPALLI P.O., PONKUNNAM 2. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.445 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has been taken as early as in 2006. The matter is at the defence stage now. Signature in the cheque is admitted. There is a contention that the cheque was stolen and was misused by the complainant to stake a false claim against the petitioner herein. 2. The petitioner filed an application to forward the cheque to the expert. The petitioner solicited opinion from the expert about the age of the signature viz a viz the age of the other writings in the cheque. According to the petitioner, the ascertainment of age of the signature of the cheque shall convincingly reveal that the cheque was not issued in the circumstances alleged by the complainant and shall support his contention that the cheque was stolen and was misutilised to stake a false claim. 3. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected the claim. The learned Magistrate took the view that there is no facility available in India now which can furnish to Crl.M.C.No. 445/09 2 him authentic opinion about the relative age of the writings. The impugned order shows that the learned Magistrate wanted the learned counsel for the petitioner to give details of any expert who could furnish authentic opinion on this aspect. There was no positive response and it was in these circumstances that the learned Magistrate proceeded to dismiss this petition. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. A pointed query was thrown at the petitioner to explain which expert of which centre will be able to furnish an authentic opinion on the question which he wants the court to ascertain. At the moment, there is no specific response given. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a query was not made by the court below and the statements to that effect in the impugned order are incorrect. The fact remains that the petitioner is not able to specify and details of the expert or the laboratory which can furnish necessary opinion now. 4. The impugned order is an interlocutory order. It is now trite that law frowns upon attempts to challenge interlocutory order during the pendency of the proceedings. A person aggrieved by the interlocutory order must ordinarily wait till final orders are passed in the main proceedings so that he can challenge the final order, if necessary as also the Crl.M.C.No. 445/09 3 interlocutory order along with the challenge against the final order. This policy of law has clearly reflected in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C which proscribes challenge against interlocutory orders by resort to the revisional jurisdiction. Even an interlocutory order in an appropriate case can be challenged in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If the court is satisfied that in the interests of justice, such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction deserves to be invoked, certainly there is jurisdictional competence for this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere with the order. But, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any such compelling reasons. I am satisfied that the petitioner can be relegated to challenge the impugned order later, if he finds the necessity to challenge the final order to be passed in the case by the court below. 5. In the result, this petition is dismissed; but I make it clear that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order later along with the judgment in S.T.No.14/06, if such challenge be necessary depending upon the findings entered. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No. 445/09 4 Crl.M.C.No. 445/09 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008