IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4741 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.106/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNNY MATHEW , AGED 44 YEARS S/O. MATHEW, PUTHIYEDATH HOUSE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JACOB JOHN, PUTHORA HOUSE, NEAR KWA QUARTERS KANJIRAMATTOM ROAD, THODUPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4741 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Cognizance has already been taken. Trial has commenced. The complainant examined himself as PW1. 2. Thereafter the complainant filed a list of witnesses for permission to examine one Mr.Das as a witness. The learned Magistrate, it is submitted at the Bar, had rejected the application. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the said rejection of his prayer to examine the said Das. 3. What is the evidence which the said witness Das has to offer? What is the relevancy of his evidence? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said Das has to be examined to prove the transaction and handing over of the cheque. Was this person cited as a witness in the complaint? He has not been so cited. Was his name mentioned in the notice of demand or in the evidence of PW1? Admittedly, there was no such reference. 4. I must alertly remind myself that I am called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction Crl.M.C.No.4741/08 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course and need be invoked only in exceptional cases in aid of justice. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am not persuaded to agree that there is any reason to invoke such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. 5. The law frowns upon challenge against interim orders passed by Magistrates in the course of proceedings during the pendency of such proceedings. This policy of law is clearly reflected in the bar against challenge against interlocutory orders under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. Notwithstanding the bar in an exceptional case, it may be open to this court to invoke such extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that I am unable to perceive any such exceptional circumstances in this case on the basis of the submissions made at the Bar. 6. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed. Needless to say, the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the right of the petitioner to challenge the refusal of permission to him to examine the witness on his side along with the appeal, if the petitioner is obliged to challenge the final decision in S.T.No.106/08 at any later stage. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.4741/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4741/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008