5.On perusal of the typed set of papers, it is seen that in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that he has failed to post some question before P.W.1 and hence, he want to recall P.W.1. But he has not mentioned as to for what purpose he want to recall P.W.1. It is well settled dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court that no Court shall permit the party to fill up the lacuna. So the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the learned Trial Judge has taken much pain and came to the correct conclusion because after P.W.1 was examined, documents were marked and the case was adjourned 15 times for cross examination of P.W.1. But, P.W.1 was not cross examined. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant approached this Court in Crl.O.P.No.24846 of 2012, wherein, a direction has been given to the trial court to dispose of the case in C.C.No.200 of 2009 within six hearings, even then, the case was adjourned for several hearings for petitioner's arguments from 22.09.2015 to 27.10.2015 i.e. Six hearings. But he has not advanced his arguments and came forward with a petition to recall P.W.1. That factum was rightly considered by the Trial Court Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with this petition only with a view to drag on the proceedings. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Gobichettipalayam in Crl.M.P.No.5427 of 2015 in C.C.No.200 of 2009 dated 19.01.2016. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petition deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.
