IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 79 of 2009 ------------------------------ (C.C. NO. 312/08 OF THE J.F.C.M.-II, KASARAGOD) ........ PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- VISHWANATH M.C, S/O. MANKU POOJARY, NIRMALA NILAYA, CHERUGOLI, MANGALPADY - POST, KASARGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. LATHEESH KUMAR R, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, COPY CAT, SANDEL CITY BUILDING, VIDY NAGAR-POST, KASARGOD TALUK. R1 BY BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 79 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The proceedings are initiated by the second respondent herein. The case has reached the stage of defence evidence. He examined DWs. 2 and 3 for the purpose of marking an agreement on which reliance is placed by the petitioner. According to him there was an agreement entered into between him and the complainant, which is produced before court as Ext.D5. DWs. 2 and 3 were examined and signed the deposition and left the court. The petitioner filed an application to recall the witnesses. That application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by the impugned order. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order and prays that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to further examine DWs. 2 and 3. 2. The prayer was opposed. The learned Magistrate took the view that both DWs. 2 and 3 have identified the executants of Crl.M.C.No. 79 of 2009 2 the agreement and proved the same. In these circumstances it was not necessary to recall DWs. 2 and 3 for examination, it was observed by the court below. 3. I find no merit in the prayer made by the petitioner to recall DWs. 2 and 3. Paragraph 2 of the impugned order clearly shows that DW2 has identified the complainant. Thus going by the impugned order execution of Ext.D5 by the complainant has been spoken to by DWs. 2 and 3 and there is no further necessity to recall the witnesses. 4. I shall not delve into the details of the dispute. Suffice it to say that I have gone through the observation made by the learned Magistrate in paragraph 2 of the impugned order. In these circumstances I agree with the learned Magistrate that there is no necessity now to recall DWs. 2 and 3. 5. More over, the impugned order is only an interlocutory order. Law frowns upon challenge of interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. This policy of law is reflected clearly in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Ordinarily and normally a person aggrieved by an interlocutory order shall have to wait till the final disposal of the Crl.M.C.No. 79 of 2009 3 case to challenge such interlocutory orders. That means, the petitioner shall have the option to challenge the impugned order later, if necessary, while challenging the final order passed in the case. In this view of the matter, I am satisfied that it is not necessary to invoke the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the impugned order. Observations in paragraph 2 of the impugned order do also persuade me to feel that in the interests of justice the challenge need not be entertained now. 6. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed, but with the specific observation that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to challenge the impugned order later, if found necessary, after the disposal of the case. (R. BASANT) Judge tm