IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3901 of 2008() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IN ST 341/2006 IN CMP.584/2008 of J.F.C.M COURT II, VARKKALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAHUL HAMEED, PUTHEN PURAYIL THEVALAKKARA PO., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL SALAM, THANKAMS SIVAGIRI JN., VARKKALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3901 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Some monetary transaction between the accused and the complainant is also admitted. The crux of the contentions is that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforcible debt/liability. The cheque, it is now seen, is one for Rs.10,00,000/-. The accused had a contention that the complainant does not have the economic ability to advance an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant was examined. His cross-examination was completed on 08/08/2007. The matter stood at the defence stage and in the course of the cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he has certain documents in his possession to prove his sources which enabled him to advance the amount to the accused. Long later, an application was filed on 26/4/2008 to direct the complainant to produce documents and to recall the complainant as a witness for cross-examination. Those prayers were rejected and the petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. Crl.M.C.No.3901/08 2 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall now be satisfied, if an opportunity is given to the petitioner to cross-examine the complainant. I do note that there has been an inordinate delay in filing the application for recalling the complainant to the witness box to further cross- examine. The accused was already given an opportunity for cross-examination which it appears, he had made full use of. 3. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The law frowns upon challenge against interlocutory orders and this policy of the law is clearly reflected in Section 379(2) Cr.P.C which proscribes challenge against interlocutory orders during the pendency of the proceedings. Normally and ordinarily, a person aggrieved by such an order will have to wait till final disposal of the case to challenge the interlocutory order along with the final order. Of course, in an exceptional case where the interests of justice compellingly demand resort to such course, jurisdictional competence is certainly available for this court to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction and interfere even with the interlocutory orders. Crl.M.C.No.3901/08 3 4. I shall not embark on any detailed discussion on the acceptability of the contentions of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that, I am not persuaded, at this juncture, to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. The petitioner must wait to challenge the impugned order, if such challenge be found to be necessary along with the final orders. 5. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to challenge the same along with the final order, if such challenge of the final order becomes necessary at the appropriate later stages. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3901/08 4 Crl.M.C.No.3901/08 5 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008