IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2185 of 2008() ------------------------- PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ ABDUL RAHIMAN KADAPPUR, S/O.KUNJU MARAKKAR, VAZHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, ERIYAD, KODUNGALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ 1. A.K.MOHAMMED, S/O.A.K.KUNJUMOIDEEN, AYYARIL HOUSE, (KARALAKKAL), ERIYAD, KODUNGALLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2185 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Trial is almost complete. The petitioner has taken up a defence that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any enforcible debt/liability. According to him actual liability has already been paid and discharged; but a signed blank cheque has been misutlised by the complainant to stake such a false claim and initiate such false criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had examined himself as DW1. At that stage, the petitioner did not produce a document. That document, contends the petitioner now, is one which will show that the complainant had issued an estimate showing the actual amount which was due from the petitioner. That document, along with other documents would now reveal that there was no outstanding liability and shall clinchingly establish that the defence set up by the petitioner is true. The petitioner, surprisingly did not produce that document while the prosecution evidence went on. Later, when he was examined as DW1 also, the petitioner did not choose Crl.M.C.No.2185/08 2 to produce that document and proved it. The petitioner summoned an employee of the complainant as a witness and wanted to prove the document. That employee turned hostile allegedly frustrating the attempt of the petitioner to prove that document. The petitioner at that stage filed an application before the learned Magistrate to permit him to recall himself and continue his examination as DW1. That request was allowed by the learned Magistrate subject to conditions. The condition imposed was not complied with. Long later, the petitioner filed another fresh application again under Section 311 Cr.P.C to permit him to recall himself and examine himself. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order turned down the said prayer. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order is certainly an interlocutory order which is outside the purview of revisional challenge. Such an order is sought to be challenged by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Ordinarily and normally, the petitioner will have to wait to challenge that order along with the final order which is to be passed by the learned Magistrate in the prosecution initiated against the petitioner. 4. Of course, in an appropriate case, the extraordinary Crl.M.C.No.2185/08 3 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked by this court; but sufficient, satisfactory and compelling reasons must be shown to exist to persuade this court to resort to such extraordinary powers. In the facts and circumstances of this case, where the petitioner has not confronted the prosecution witnesses with this document; had not chosen to introduce this document in evidence when he was in the witness box and had not complied with the conditions when the court indulgently granted him the luxury of a further opportunity to introduce that document, I am unable to agree that there are any such compelling reasons to justify invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. 5. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is in these circumstances fails. I may, however, hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any final opinion on merits. I have only chosen to take the view that the impugned order does not warrant interference by invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner's option to challenge the impugned order in appropriate proceedings at later stages, if such challenge be necessary at all shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.2185/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.2185/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.CNo. ORDER 21ST DAY OF MAY2007