JYOTIRMOYEE NAG, J. ( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against an order dated 26. 6. 80 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Barrackpore adjourning a case u/s. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground of inability of the senior lawyer for petitioner to attend court on that day which was fixed for examining witnesses. The learned Magistrate ultimately granted adjournment and awarded a cost of Rs. 150/- to be paid to the opposite party, wife. The reason for awarding such high cost is that on a perusal of the order-sheet of the case the learned Magistrate observed that on every occasion since the case had been transferred to him, the petitioner prayed for adjournment giving different reasons on different occasions and the learned Magistrate felt that if this sort of tactics continued it would cause great injustice to the opposite party, wife. None of the lawyers for the petitioner, though there were more than one, was prepared to cross-examine the witness of the opposite party, wife. At first, the learned Magistrate rejected the petition for adjournment and asked the petitioner's husband to get ready at once and he fixed 3-00 P. M. positively for hearing the matter that day. At about 3 P. M. another petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate observed that as he wanted to give the opposite party another chance for getting ready with his case, he adjourned the case but awarded cost as observed earlier. It is against his order that the petitioner has come up in revision. ( 2 ) MR. Sekhar Basu appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Magistrate in a proceeding under section 125 Cr. P. C. which is in the nature of a quasi civil proceeding is not competent to award cost. The only cost that is prescribed in respect of matters u/s 125 of the Code is that under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 126 of the Code, when the husband comes up after the proceeding is heard exparte to set aside that from the date of the order. In such case the learned Magistrate has the discretion to reopen the case upon payment of some cost to the wife, opposite party as the Magistrate thinks just and proper. In such case the learned Magistrate has the discretion to reopen the case upon payment of some cost to the wife, opposite party as the Magistrate thinks just and proper. That is the only provision providing for cost to be awarded in a proceeding u/s 125 of the Code. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate, however, awarded the cost u/s 309 Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Basu has submitted that section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure doe not apply inasmuch as section 126 itself provides for awarding cost, but that section does not provide for awarding adjournment cost. He has submitted that the enquiry as envisaged under section 309 Criminal Procedure Code relates to a criminal proceeding and the proceedings under section 125 not being a criminal proceeding, Section 309 Cr. P. Code is not attracted. Mr. Basu has cited several cases which were decided under the provision of the previous Code u/s 488 of the previous Cr. P. Code. Those cases are reported in AIR 1960 SC 882 , 40 Cr. Law Journal, 441 and 29 Criminal Law Journal, 1002. On the other hand, Mr. Das for the opposite party has referred to a case reported in AIR 1958 Allahabad, 578. That case was in connection with a proceeding u/s 107 Cr. P. Code where it was found that section 344 of the previous Code applied to such proceedings though they are not strictly trials under the Criminal Procedure Code. But in this case, it must be observed in a case before the amendment to the Code came into operation. Mr. Basu has relied on the Supreme Court decision referred to above to point out that the proceedings under S125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are quasi civil in nature and therefore, section 309 Criminal Procedure Code will not apply to such proceedings which are in the nature of a civil proceedings incorporated the Criminal Procedure Code for the purpose of giving relief to a distressed wife expeditiously. The other decisions referred to above, were decided before the present section 309 Criminal Procedure Code came to be incorporated in the amended Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, it is not necessary to discuss the same. The other decisions referred to above, were decided before the present section 309 Criminal Procedure Code came to be incorporated in the amended Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, it is not necessary to discuss the same. ( 4 ) NOW, coming to the definition of enquiry under S2 (g) of the Criminal Procedure Code it is significant to note that 'an enquiry' has been defined as meaning any enquiry other than a trial conducted in this Code by a Magistrate's Court. Therefore, there is no reason why the enquiry held under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code should not come within the ambit of the definition of 'enquiry'. The explanation 2 to section 309 Criminal Procedure Code provides that the terms on which an adjournment or postponement may be granted include, in proper cases, the payment of costs by the prosecution of the accused. The explanation shows that his will include such proceeding as the enquiry under section 145 and even under section 107 of the Code. There is no reason to interpret section 309 in the narrow sense as Mr. Basu would like me to do. Apart from this, Mr. Das referred to sub-section (3) of section 126 which also provides that the court in dealing with the applications under section 125 shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just. Mr. Das submits that his would include the adjournment cost also. I am more inclined to hold that section 309 Criminal Procedure would apply to proceedings under section 125 Criminal Procedure Code and the learned Magistrate was within his competence in granting adjournment cost under the said section. ( 5 ) IT has been further argued by Mr. Basu that the adjournment cost is excessive even if it is conceded that the Magistrate has power to grant adjournment cost. Mr. Das has pointed out with reference to the order-sheet of the case before the learned Magistrate that since the case had been transferred to the said Magistrate on all occasion adjournments have been prayed for by the petitioner on one plea or the other and the learned Magistrate on two previous occasions granted adjournment cost @ Rs. 20/- and the learned magistrate also observed that on each occasion the opposite party was present with three witnesses. The petitioner husband took adjournments thereby causing great harassment to the opposite party, wife. 20/- and the learned magistrate also observed that on each occasion the opposite party was present with three witnesses. The petitioner husband took adjournments thereby causing great harassment to the opposite party, wife. Undoubtedly, the husband's application for the adjournments appear to be for the purpose of harassing the wife so that the matter might be prolonged and ultimately witnesses may not be available. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING all these facts, I am in agreement with the finding of the learned Magistrate and hold that the was justified in granting the adjournment cost as he did. ( 7 ) IN the result, this Rule is discharged. The learned Magistrate will proceed as expeditiously as possible with the hearing of the proceeding. He will also see that the opposite party is not be harassed by granting unnecessary adjournments to the petitioner, husband. Let the records go down as early as possible. Rule discharged without costs.