IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 1160 of 2007()
1. RENUKA RACHEL ABRAHAM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. LETTY PATRIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :11/04/2007
O R D E R
R. BASANT, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 1160 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section
138 of the N.I. Act. The trial has reached its fag end. It is the case
of the petitioner that there was no transaction between her and the
complainant as alleged on the date alleged by the complainant. In
support of her case, she examined herself and proved her passport.
When Ext.D1 passport was marked, the complainant appears to have
realised the incongruity and claimed a further opportunity to examine
her. That application was under Section 311 Cr.P.C. That was
allowed by the learned Magistrate by Annex.F, which is impugned in
this proceedings.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no
amount of explanation by the complainant can improve the matter.
No opportunity to fill up the lacuna in the case of the prosecution can
be granted. In these circumstances the impugned order may be set
aside, it is prayed.
Crl.M.C.No. 1160 of 2007
2
3. I shall alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of
the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The jurisdiction
which is sought to be invoked is an extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction.
Such jurisdiction is to be invoked only in aid of justice.
4. On the basis of the materials presently available, I am unable to
accept the argument that this is a fit case where the powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked. In giving the complainant a further
opportunity to explain the alleged inaccuracy in the evidence that is
tendered, I can see no element of any vice which would justify invocation
of the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. This Crl.M.C. is accordingly dismissed. However, I may hasten to
observe that I have not intended to express any opinion on merits about the
acceptability of the plea of the complainant. I have only chosen to hold that
the order does not warrant any correction by invoking the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner shall be entitled to
raise all her contentions. Even the contention that the impugned order is
not correct can at later stages be raised if she finds it necessary to
Crl.M.C.No. 1160 of 2007
3
challenge the final order in the prosecution by initiating appropriate
proceedings in appeal.
(R. BASANT)
tm Judge