1 713.11-apl-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 713 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 714 OF 2011 Shri Anil Ramrao Naik. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. V.Parsurami i/b. Praveen L. Singh for the applicant. A.S.Shitole, APP for the State. R.S.Tripathi for respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 25th July 2011. P.C. : Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties. 2. By way of present applications, the applicant has challenged the orders dated 8th July 2011 whereby the applications filed by the present applicant for recalling witness came to be rejected. 3. The respondent No.2- complainant has filed two criminal complaints on the basis of allegations that the cheques given by the applicant have been bounced. At the end of the said proceedings, the aforesaid applications came to be filed by the applicant on the ground that for the same purpose the proceedings are pending before the Arbitrator and, therefore, the P.W.1 i.e. partner of the complainant- firm should be recalled. The learned 2 713.11-apl-- counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed these applications. He submits that the issue before the Arbitrator and the issue pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate are totally different and, as such, no infirmity can be found in the impugned orders. 4. Without going to the merits of the matter, I find that since, undisputedly, a dispute is pending before the learned Arbitrator between both parties, it would be in the interest of justice that the applicant is permitted to cross-examine the complainant on the limited issue of arbitration and proceeding before learned Arbitrator. Needless to state that if the applicant seeks to cross-examine the complainant on the other issues, the same would not be allowed. 5. It is informed that the matter is fixed today before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate would, therefore, adjourned matter for a short date. On the said adjourned date, the complainant, who is present in the Court, undertakes to remain present. The applicant would cross-examine the complainant on the very same date and conclude the same. Needless to state that the cross-examination shall be restricted only so far as issue of arbitration and proceeding before the Arbitrator. Needless to state further that if the applicant makes any further application for protracting the trial, the same would not be entertained by the learned Magistrate. 6. Thereafter the learned Magistrate would adjourn the matter for a short date for hearing the arguments of the parties. If the arguments are concluded the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, by 31st August 2011. 7. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)