IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4158 of 2008() ------------------------- S.T.NO.2345/2004 OF J.F.C.M-II, ATTINGAL PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED ALI, RESIDING AT T.C. 49/770, KALIPPANKULAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, EPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEMOM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MUHAMMED SADIQUE, S/O. MUHAMMAD ABDUL KHADER, KHADEEJA MANZIL, THEKKATIL KADA JUNCTION , KANIYAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4158 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was filed as early as in 2004. The petitioner had entered appearance in 2006. The matter has now reached at the stage of defence evidence. In the complaint, the accused is described as M.Azeez, S/o Muhammedali, Panavila Veedu, T.C.53/2468, Nemom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, he is Abdul Rasheed and not Azeez. The complainant had filed an application as early as in 2006 to carry out the amendment to clarify that the petitioner is Azeez alias Abdul Rasheed. No order appears to have been passed in that application; but long later, by the impugned order dated 20/9/2008, that petition was allowed. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order. 2. The policy of law is to discourage challenge against interlocutory orders during the pendency of proceedings before the subordinate courts. This policy of law is clearly reflected in the bar against challenge against interlocutory order under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. I am not going into the question whether the order is legally proper or justifiable. But I am of the opinion Crl.M.C.No.4158/08 2 that the petitioner who had taken part in the proceedings admittedly from 2006 to 2008 must be relegated to challenge the impugned interlocutory order along with the final order to be passed in S.T.No.2345/2004, if such challenge be necessary. It is trite that interlocutory orders can also be challenged along with the challenge against the final orders. In the instant case, the fact that the petitioner had admittedly entered appearance in 2006 and had continued with the trial till now, does weigh with me to take the stand that the petitioner's challenge at this stage against the interlocutory order notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C by inviting this court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not justified. 3. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to take up all contentions before the learned Magistrate and claim acquittal. Such dismissal shall also not fetter the rights of the petitioner to take up any appropriate contentions in the challenge against the final order to be passed in S.T.No.2345/2004, if such challenge be necessary. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4158/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4158/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008