IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 757 of 2007()
1. P.PRASANTH, S/O.PONNUMUTHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. L.STEPHEN, C.M.S.BHAVAN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :20/03/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.757 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2007
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in a prosecution under Section 138
of the N.I Act. The matter has reached at the stage of evidence. At
the defence stage, the accused filed an application to send the cheque
to the expert. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected
the said application. Aggrieved by the said order, copy of which is
produced as Annexure-A, the petitioner has come to this Court.
2. I shall carefully avoid any unnecessary detailed discussions
which would encumber the records. The fact that the cheque is drawn
on a cheque leaf issued to the petitioner by his bank to operate his
account is not disputed. Notice of demand though duly received and
acknowledged did not admittedly evoke any response. A contention
was raised in the course of trial that there was stealthy removal of
blank cheque leaves from the premises of the accused by the
complainant. Even after notice of demand was received, no complaint
whatsoever was made before any authorities about such an alleged
contumacious conduct on the part of the complainant. The learned
Magistrate on a perusal of the signature in the cheque along with
admitted signatures felt that they compare favourably.
Crl.M.C.No.757 of 2007 2
3. I must note that I am called upon to exercise the
extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such
jurisdiction is not to be invoked as a matter of course. Exceptional
reasons must be shown to exist to justify any such invocation. The
law frowns upon challenge raised against interlocutory orders. Section
397(2) Cr.P.C reflects this attitude of the law. Therefore ordinarily and
normally, the interlocutory orders like the instant one will have to wait
for their challenge along with the final orders to be passed in the
prosecution. As stated earlier, I do not intend to express any opinion
on merits. Suffice it to say that in the facts and circumstances of this
case, I am unable to agree that there is any warrant for invocation of
the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may
hasten to observe that the petitioner’s right to challenge the impugned
order along with final orders to be passed in the prosecution will
remain unfettered by such dismissal.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-