4.I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is seen from the docket order that on 29.11.2010, it was represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was prepared to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost to the respondent/complainant and that was recorded by this Court. No order was passed by this Court that the petition would be allowed on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that this Court has directed to the petitioner to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost for allowing the petition, cannot be accepted. It is seen from the order that cross examiantion of PW1 was over on 26.08.2010 and the case was adjourned to 04.09.2010, 18.09.2010, 22.10.2010 and 26.10.2010 and thereafter, the case was posted for defence side evidence and the petitioner did not examine any witness on his side. On the other hand, the petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P.No.4796 of 2009 under Section 45 of Evidence Act, which was was dismissed and thereafter, the present petition in Crl.M.P.No.4287 of 2010 was filed to re-call PW1 for further cross examination. It is also seen that the cross examination was conducted on 26.08.2010 and that PW1 was effectively cross examined at length. However, considering the number of adjournment granted at the instance of the petitioner, the trial court has rightly dismissed the application holding that he has clearly abused of process of Court. Therefore, there is no need to interefer with the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to dispose of the case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
