IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3069 of 2007()
1. SALIM, AGED 53,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. V.B.SREEDEVI, W/O. MURALEEDHARAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :05/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3069 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2007
O R D E R
The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that
a cheque for Rs.50,000/- was issued by the petitioner to the
complainant for refund of treatment fee given to the petitioner for
treatment of the ailing son of the complainant. Ext.D1 is not disputed.
In fact, the original of Ext.D1 was produced by the complainant.
2. Signature in the cheque is not disputed. Handing over of
the cheque is not disputed. That the cheque was for an amount of
Rs.50,000/- is again not disputed. What then is the dispute ? The
petitioner has a contention that the cheque was handed over not to
the complainant but to the brother in law of the complainant. He has a
further contention that the name of the payee was entered not by the
petitioner but by the complainant or some other persons at his
instance. It is his contention now before me that the cheque was
obtained by the brother in law of the complainant under duress. There
is no allegation of any conduct consistent with such handing over of
the cheque under coercion. Notice of demand when received did not
evoke any response also. At the fag end of trial, an application was
Crl.M.C.No.3069 of 2007 2
made by the accused to send Ext.D1 document to the expert. What is
the purpose ? Ext.D1 document shows that the cheque for
Rs.50,000/- was handed over by the petitioner. That receipt has been
acknowledged allegedly by the brother in law of the complainant. The
complainant has a case that the cheque was issued to her. It is to
resolve this controversy as to whether the cheque was issued by the
complainant or to her brother in law by the petitioner that the
document Ext.D1 is sought to be sent to the expert.
3. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order rejected
the prayer. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order. He
has come to this Court with the prayer that powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C may be invoked to interfere with the impugned order.
4. I shall carefully avoid the temptation to discuss the matter
in detail on merits, lest it might adversely affect the interests of the
petitioner in the course of trial. In the totality of facts and
circumstances, I am not at all persuaded to invoke the jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction
which is sought to be invoked. It is not to be invoked as a matter of
course. Satisfactory, compelling and exceptional reasons must be
shown to exist to justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent
jurisdiction in the course of trial that too against an interlocutory order
Crl.M.C.No.3069 of 2007 3
like the impugned order. Law frowns upon challenge against
interlocutory orders in the course of trial. This policy of the law
reflected eloquently under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C which proscribes
challenge against interlocutory order in revision. Not that this Court
does not have jurisdictional competence to invoke the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C even in a case where revision may not lie, but I am
certainly convinced that this case does not have any features which
would justify the invocation of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition must, in these circumstances,
fail.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
are certain observations made in the impugned order which might
suggest that the learned Magistrate has already come to crucial
conclusions on disputed facts. I need only mention that no
observations in the impugned order or in this order should weigh with
the court while considering the contentions on merits at the end of the
trial.
This Crl.M.C is dismissed with the above observations.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C.No.3069 of 2007 4