IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 11920 of 2007(R)
1. C.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.O.CHACKO, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.A.F.SEBASTIAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :09/04/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.C.No. 11920 of 2007 R
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2007
JUDGMENT
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section
138 of the N.I. Act. The case has been at the stage of defence
evidence. The petitioner has come to this Court claiming to be
aggrieved by an order passed by the learned Magistrate on the
application filed by him under Section 315 Cr.P.C. The learned
Magistrate, it is submitted, did not entertain the said prayer for
examination of the accused under Section 315 Cr.P.C. and is
proceeding to dispose of the case itself.
2. Copy of the order has not been produced so far. Admittedly
Ext.P2 is the application filed. It is not filed by the accused under
Section 315 Cr.P.C. His counsel has signed the petition on his
behalf. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter
stands posted for judgment to this date. The petitioner has several
grievances against the course adopted by the learned Magistrate. It
is submitted that the defence witness, though summoned, has not
been examined. The petitioner submits that he has been denied an
opportunity to examine the witnesses and post the case for judgment even
without hearing the petitioner’s counsel.
3. Powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and Section 482
Cr.P.C. are to be invoked only in an exceptional case and sparingly in aid of
justice. This law does not encourage challenge against interim orders
passed. The policy of law is reflected clearly in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
Normally such interlocutory orders must wait for their challenge along with
the final order to be passed. Of course, there is jurisdictional competence
for the court to invoke the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution or
Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am not persuaded to agree, on the facts and
circumstances of this case, that any such resort to the exceptional powers
available to this Court can or need be invoked.
4. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. But I may hasten to
observe that the dismissal of this writ petition will not in any way fetter the
rights of the petitioner to challenge any interlocutory order passed by the
learned Magistrate in the course of the proceedings if there has been
prejudice caused on account of such dismissal of application.
(R. BASANT)
tm Judge