Allowed

M/S Bhukhanwala Tools Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. M/S SBI Global Factors Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2026WP/761/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Batch of six Criminal Writ Petitions (Nos. 756-761 of 2026), Bombay High Court, Jamadar J., 20.02.2026. Accused (Nitish Bhukhanwala; M/s. Bhukhanwala Tools Pvt. Ltd.) versus M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd.; APP for the State. Challenge to Magistrate (58th Court, Bandra) orders dated 30.10.2025 rejecting recall of complainant for cross-examination; earlier dismissal application rejected and Sessions r

What did the court decide?

All six Criminal Writ Petitions allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b): the impugned orders dated 30 October 2025 and the 'no-cross' order dated 25 June 2025 are quashed and set aside; the pet

M/S Bhukhanwala Tools Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs M/S SBI Global Factors Ltd. and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

25-30-WP756-2026+.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 756 OF 2026

¶6

Nitish Bhukhanwala and anr. ...Petitioners

¶7

Versus M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. and anr. …Respondents

¶8

AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 757 OF 2026

¶9

M/s. Bhukhanwala Tools Pvt. Ltd. and anr. ...Petitioners

¶10

SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI

¶11

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.02.23 11:01:30 +0530

¶12

Versus M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. and anr. …Respondents

¶13

AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 758 OF 2026

¶14

Nitish Bhukhanwala and anr. ...Petitioners

¶15

Versus M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. and ors. …Respondents AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 759 OF 2026

¶16

M/s. Bhukhanwala Tools Pvt. Ltd. and anr. ...Petitioners Versus M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. and ors. …Respondents

¶17

AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 760 OF 2026

¶18

Nitish Bhukhanwala and anr. ...Petitioners Versus M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. and ors. …Respondents

¶19

AND CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 761 OF 2026

¶20

M/s. Bhukhanwala Tools Pvt. Ltd. and anr. ...Petitioners Versus M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. and ors. …Respondents

¶21

1/4

¶22

25-30-WP756-2026+.DOC

¶23

Mr. Ram Upadhyay, through VC, a/w Narayan Mishra, i/b Law Competere Consultus, for the Petitioners in all WP. Mr. Yashpal Thakur, for Respondent No.1 in all WP. Mr. A. D. Kamkhedkar, APP for the State in WP/756/2026 to 758/2026 and 760/2026 and 761/2026.

¶24

Mr. A. R. Metkari, APP for the State in WP/759/2026.

¶25

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 20^th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶26

Oral Order:-

¶27

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶28

The challenge in these petitions is to the orders dated 30^th October, 2025, passed by the learned Magistrate, 58^th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, whereby the applications preferred by the petitioners – accused for recall of the complainant for crossexamination, came to be rejected.

¶29

The record indicates that the petitioners had filed an application for the dismissal of the complaint, which was rejected by the learned Magistrate. The said order was challenged, by the petitioners, before the Court of Session. By a judgment and order dated 30^th September, 2025, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision applications. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application for recall of the complainant for cross-examination by setting aside no-cross order dated 25^th

¶30

June, 2025.

¶31

2/4

¶32

25-30-WP756-2026+.DOC

¶33

There might be an element of delay and indolence on the part of the petitioners. However, the petitioners – accused have an invaluable right to cross-examine the witness, to elicit the truth. The cross-examination of the complainant is necessary for a just decision of the case. The test for the exercise of power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the necessity of the examination of the witness for a just decision of the case. A useful reference in this context can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Natasha Singh vs. CBI (State)¹ .

¶34

The impugned orders, thus, deserve to be quashed and set aside with a view to provide an efficacious opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and advance the cause of substantive justice. At the same time, the concern of the complainant needs to be adequately addressed.

¶35

The Court is informed that the complaints are now listed before the learned Magistrate on 26^th February, 2026.

¶36

Mr. Upadhyay, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the petitioners will conduct the cross-examination of the complainant on 26^th February, 2026.

¶37

1 2013 (5) SCC 741.

¶38

3/4

¶39

25-30-WP756-2026+.DOC

¶40

The petitions, thus, stand allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶41

The impugned order as well as the order dated 25^th June, 2025 of “no-cross” stand quashed and set aside.

¶42

The petitioners – accused shall cross-examine the complainant on 26^th February, 2026, without fail.

¶43

The petitioners – accused shall not seek any adjournment for the cross-examination of the complainant.

¶44

In the event the cross-examination is required to be deferred beyond 26^th February, 2026, the petitioners shall conduct the cross-examination on the adjourned date and shall not seek any adjournment for the purpose of cross-examination.

¶45

The trial Court is requested to hear and decide the complaints as expeditiously as possible.

¶46

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶47

4/4

M/S Bhukhanwala Tools Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. M/S SBI Global Factors Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bhukhanwala Tools Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. M/S SBI Global Factors Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases