JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.:— The petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. challenging the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur Metro II (hereinafter referred to as ‘the revisional court’) in Criminal Revision No. 60/2022 (662/2022) whereby the learned revisional court allowed the revision preferred by the petitioner subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- which is to be deposited with District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur and with a direction to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant before the next date fixed in the trial.

2. The petitioner is facing trial in a criminal case No. 2757/2015 filed under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act before the court of learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 6 Jaipur Metro II wherein his right to cross- examine Smt. Kesar Devi, wife of the complainant has been closed by the learned trial court. On 01.08.2022, the accused petitioner moved an application for reopening his right to cross-examine Smt Kesar Devi. The learned trial court vide order dated 07.09.2022 dismissed the application of the petitioner and posted the matter for statement of accused. Being aggrieved of the order dated 07.09.2022, the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned revisional court. The learned revisional court vide order dated 10.1 1.2022, accepted the revision of the petitioner and set aside the order dated 7.9.2022 subject to the cost which is to be paid before the next date fixed in the trial court. It was directed by the learned revisional court that cost of Rs. 10,000/- would be deposited with District Legal Services Authority, Jaipur and Rs. 20,000/- would be paid to Smt. Kesar Devi, wife of the complainant. After passing of the said order, the petitioner again moved an application dated 11.11.2022 before the learned revisional court seeking extension of time with regard to payment of cost. However, the learned revisioal court dismissed the application vide order dated 11.11.2022 and refused to grant further time for making payment of cost. Hence, the petitioner preferred this misc. petition.

3. The petitioner presented the misc. petition in the Office on 15.11.2022 i.e., within four days of the order dated 11.11.2022. Vide order dated 14.12.2022, in order to see the bonafides of the petitioner, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit cost of Rs. 20,000/- before the learned trial court within a week and subject to furnishing of receipt of cost, notices were directed to be issued to respondent No. 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the directions given by this Court, on 19.12.2022, the petitioner has deposited the cost of Rs. 20,000/- with the trial court and receipt thereof has also been placed on record. He submits that the petitioner is not intended to linger on the trial and is very much interested to cross-examine the wife of the complainant Smt. Kesar Devi as she is a very crucial and important witness. He submits that the bonafides of the petitioner can be gathered from the fact that he has deposited the cost of Rs. 20,000/- with the trial court within a week.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions of the petitioner's counsel and urges that the petitioner is trying to linger on the trial on one pretext or the other. He thus, prays that the misc. petition may be dismissed with cost.

6. The instant misc. petition was presented in the Office on 15.11.2022 just after four days of the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the learned revisioal court dismissing the prayer of the petitioner for granting extension of time. Further, cost of Rs. 20,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner before the learned trial co