IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 408 of 2009() ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/01/2009 IN CRMP 5939/08 IN CC.1057/2006 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURESH BABU V, RESIDING AT SINDHOORAM, RAJIV GNDHI LANE, ENCHACKAL, TEMPLE ROAD, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.G. SOMAKUMARAN NAIR, NANDANAM, CHAITHANYA NAGAR, ELOOR WEST P.O., TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 408 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 ORDER The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Notice of demand, though duly received, did not admittedly evoke any response. At the stage of trial, a plea was taken that the cheque was not signed, executed or handed over by the petitioner to the complainant. The petitioner and the complainant were friends and co- workers. It is suggested that the complainant must have stealthily come into possession of blank cheques and must have forged them by making other entries including the signature of the petitioner. To substantiate this contention, the petitioner wanted the cheque, along with the specimen signature card which was also produced in court, to be forwarded to the Crl.M.C. No. 408 of 2009 -: 2 :- expert. An application was filed at the defence stage for this purpose. The learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, rejected the same. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said order and prays that the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to set aside that order. Permission may be granted to send the cheque to the expert, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The impugned order is an interlocutory order. The prayer is only as a step in aid to enable the petitioner to substantiate his contention. It is trite in law that an interlocutory order must ordinarily wait till the final order is passed on such proceedings for a challenge to be mounted against it. Such challenge can be mounted not during the pendency of the proceedings. The law frowns upon such attempt to challenge interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. This policy of law is clearly reflected in Sec.397(2) Cr.P.C. which proscribes revisional challenge against interlocutory orders. Those aggrieved by the interlocutory orders like the petitioner in this case must wait for the disposal of the case to challenge the final order, if necessary, along with that interlocutory orders like the instant one. Of course, in an exceptional case this Court has the reservoir of powers under Crl.M.C. No. 408 of 2009 -: 3 :- Sec.482 Cr.P.C. to act in aid of justice to interfere with even interlocutory orders. I am not persuaded to agree that any such circumstances exist in this case which can justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of this case, must certainly be relegated to challenge the impugned order along with the final order, if the petitioner finds such challenge of the final order to be necessary. 3. I may hasten to observe that I have not intended to express any final opinion on the contention of the petitioner that all the entires in the cheque including the signature were not made by him. He can raise such contention before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate untrammelled by any observations in the impugned order or this order must consider that contention of the petitioner on merits and take appropriate decision. 4. This Crl.M.C. is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.M.C. No. 408 of 2009 -: 4 :-