Judgment Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this matter, respondent No. 3, accused in R.C.C. No. 408/2013, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur has been permitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by order below Exh.37 to travel abroad. The matter is under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and other Sections mentioned in the charge sheet. The petitioner-wife is the original complainant. She has challenged the order concerned by filing the present petition. 3. The petitioner is raising various grounds pointing out as to how the marriage which took place on 11.5.2013 could not succeed and by 27.5.2013 the F.I.R. was required to be filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, disputes arose inter-alia due to the petitioner coming to know about respondent No.3 having an affair with some lady in U.S.A. The counsel submits that, because of that, the respondent No. 3 wants to go to U.S.A. and if he gets married there, he may not return back to India. The argument is that the charge was framed on 19.10.2013 and even evidence of the petitioner started in the matter and she has also been partly examined. The counsel tendered copy of roznama which is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. The copy of roznama shows that charge was framed on 19.10.2013. In the trial Court, the evidence of complainant was recorded on 13.1.2014 and cross-examination took place and for further cross-examination matter was deferred on that day. According to learned counsel, since then the respondent No.3 has delayed the proceedings and pressed for this application to permit him to go to U.S.A. It is argued that, respondent No.3 is working in Infosys at Pune and has claimed that on deputation from the same Company he wants to go to U.S.A. The apprehension of the counsel for petitioner is that, as per the law, although the Passport of respondent No.3 would expire on 14.12.2014, he has Visa up to 27.8.2015 and he would be able to get the passport period extended even without coming back to India. The argument is that, due to impugned order trial is stalled when it is already Part Heard. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 argued that, within no time after the marriage, dispute has started. The argument is that, due to impugned order trial is stalled when it is already Part Heard. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 argued that, within no time after the marriage, dispute has started. The counsel tendered document from Infosys Ltd., dated 13.7.2012 to show that even earlier the respondent was offered deputation by his Company to go to U.S.A. The counsel submits that, as per that offer also the respondent No. 3 had gone and by mistake the trial Court has observed in its impugned order that on that occasion the respondent No.3 was not able to go. It has been argued that, now by order dated 18.4.2014, the Infosys has again offered to send him to U.S.A. and in order to pursue the career it is necessary for respondent No.3 to accept the offer and he should be allowed to go to U.S.A. (The two letters are taken on record and marked "Y".) Learned counsel submitted that, the order of the trial Court has taken all reasonable care to ensure that the presence of respondent No.3 is secured. The respondent No.3 has already given undertaking that he will not dispute the identity and the trial can proceed. Thus, according to the counsel, the present petition deserves to be rejected. Reliance has been placed on the case of Chetan R. Nagda & ors. vs. N.D. Pawar & anr., reported in 2006 Bom.C.R. 1 267 : [2006 ALL MR (Cri) 12]. The argument is that, instead of filing revision, present petition has been filed which should have been discouraged. 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has supported the petition, submitting that, in this matter already charge was framed and evidence is partly recorded and that the prosecution can conduct the matter on day-to-day basis when there are hardly six witnesses and that within a month the concerned criminal case can be decided. According to learned A.P.P., it is not a case that the respondent No.3 will lose his job if he does not go to U.S.A. as he is already working in Infosys and there is no such urgency as has been made out. Learned A.P.P. submits that, even the security of Rs. 30,000/- taken by the trial Court is very insignificant looking to the cost of living at present and the income. 6. Learned A.P.P. submits that, even the security of Rs. 30,000/- taken by the trial Court is very insignificant looking to the cost of living at present and the income. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply argued that if the respondent No.3 is allowed to go before trial is completed, he may not come back and in his absence, stage of Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code may get stuck and the matter will be stalled. 7. I have heard counsel for both sides and perused the record. It appears from the impugned order para 3 that the application Exh. 37 was moved on 19.10.2013. At that time, it was kept in abeyance on request of both sides with understanding that the matter would be disposed within one month. It appears, thereafter the matter has got prolonged and thus, the trial Court entertained the application and has passed the order. It appears from record that, subsequently, evidence of the petitioner has been substantially recorded. The copy of the evidence has been tendered by the counsel for petitioner. Same is taken on record and marked "Z" for identification. In the situation, when there are hardly six witnesses and the evidence of the main witness has already been substantially recorded, it appears to me that the matter being Part Heard, it was not appropriate to let the respondent No.3 proceed out of country. The impugned order itself has asked the respondent No.3 to come back on 12.12.2014. Thus, the Court appears to be saying that the matter would in any case not be disposed till then. It does not appear to be appropriate in a Part Heard matter that the proceeding should be stalled. The amount of deposit of Rs. 30,000/- is also hardly any security. I find no reason why the matter should not be expedited and finished in a month. If the prosecution delays the matter, the respondent No.3 should be at liberty to again make a request for permission to go abroad. If the accused delay the matter, the Court can decline such request. Thus, the parties can be put on guard to conduct the matter expeditiously. Learned A.P.P. is right that it is not a case where respondent No.3 would go out of job. He is already working with Infosys and if the trial is completed in a month, he can always take his chances further. Thus, the parties can be put on guard to conduct the matter expeditiously. Learned A.P.P. is right that it is not a case where respondent No.3 would go out of job. He is already working with Infosys and if the trial is completed in a month, he can always take his chances further. However, to stall further proceedings in a criminal trial is not appropriate. 8. For reasons mentioned above, the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to expedite hearing of the Criminal Case and conduct the case on day-to-day basis and try to dispose the same within a month. If the State delays the hearing of the matter, the respondent No.3 would be at liberty to apply again to the trial Court for permission to travel abroad and the trial Court would be justified in entertaining the request and deciding according to law. If the accused delay the proceedings, there would be no reason for trial Court to entertain the application for travelling abroad. 9. At this stage, it is mentioned by the counsel for petitioner that in the trial Court, the Criminal Case was kept on 3.5.2014 and the trial Court has now adjourned the matter to 12th July 2014. The counsel for both sides agree that the date needs to be preponed. Counsel for respondent No.3 states, respondent No.3 along with other accused will appear before the trial Court on 14.5.2014 on which date, matter can proceed further. The matter, thereafter be tried to be decided within one month. The petitioner will appear on 14.5.2014 and the cross-examination of petitioner may be completed on the same day. Counsel for petitioner states that witnesses who are relatives and friends of the petitioner would be kept present by her in the Court without requesting for summons. Regarding the witnesses who are not relatives or friends of the petitioner, the A.P.P. will make efforts to ensure their presence by sending special messenger. 10. With these directions, the Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of Rule made absolute. Ordered accordingly.