Hari Om Sai Stone MetalversusVipul Shantilal Dedhia

                                                 923-WP-3098-2026.DOC




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3098 OF 2026
Hari Om Sai Stone Metal
C/o. R. R. Patil Stone Crusher & Anr.               …Petitioners
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                     …Respondents


Mr. Pabari Mukesh Jayantilal, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Mayur Sonavane, APP, for the Respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Santosh Jadhav, PSI, Pairavi Officer, Pant Nagar Police Station,
Mumbai, present in Court.


                       CORAM:      MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                       DATED :     19th AUGUST 2026
PC:-


1.       Heard Mr. Pabari, learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioners and Mr. Sonavane, learned APP appearing for the

Respondent-State.



2.       By this Writ Petition, the challenge is to the legality and

validity of the order dated 16th April 2026 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier at

Mazgaon, Mumbai below Exhibit-34 in C.C. No.721/SUM/2022 as

also another order dated 16th April 2026 passed below Exhibit-33

in C.C. No.721/Sum/2022. The prayer in Application below




                                 Page 1
Sonali
                                                  923-WP-3098-2026.DOC




Exhibit-33 is to recall and cross-examine the Complainant and in

Application bearing Exhibit-34, prayer is for issuance of directions

to the Complainant to file on record its audited balancesheet,

ledger account of the accused with supporting vouchers, books of

account, income tax record, bank account statement and petrol

delivery slip.



3.       It is the submission of learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioners that the learned Advocate earlier appearing before the

learned Trial Court has not conducted the cross-examination

properly.



4.       Perusal of the record shows that the Complainant i.e. P.W. 1

has been cross-examined by the learned Advocate of the

Petitioners. In fact, it is required to be noted that the cross-

examination of the P.W. 1 was conducted on 6 th January 2024 and

at the request of the Petitioners, cross-examination was deferred.

The further cross-examination was conducted on 14 th February

2024 and after conducting the cross-examination, the adjournment

was sought to cross-examine P.W. 1 on the point of bills. In fact, it

is represented that only the cross-examination will be conducted




                                 Page 2
Sonali
                                                  923-WP-3098-2026.DOC




with respect to the bills. As the Complainant i.e. P.W.1 has shown

readiness to produce the bills, the adjournment was granted.

Thereafter, further cross-examination was conducted on 18 th

October 2024, on which date the P.W. 1 produced the bills and

same were exhibited as Exhibits 30 and 31 and the P.W. 1 has been

cross-examined. Thereafter, the cross-examination has been

completed. Thus, it cannot be said that the cross-examination has

not been properly done. Thus, it is not necessary to recall the P.W.1

for cross-examination. The contention raised by the Petitioners is

contrary to the position on record.



5.       As far as the Application seeking directions to the

Complainant to produce on record audited balancesheet, ledger

account of the accused with supporting vouchers, books of

account, income tax record, bank account statement and petrol

delivery slip etc., it is required to be noted that there are business

transactions between the Petitioners i.e. accused and Respondent

No.2 i.e. Complainant for a period of eight months and at the fag-

end of each month, bills are given to all the customers and the said

bills are produced by the Complainant.




                                Page 3
Sonali
                                                                  923-WP-3098-2026.DOC




              6.       Thus, in the facts and circumstances, no illegality or

              irregularity is pointed out in the impugned orders.



              7.       Accordingly, no case is made out for interference in the

              impugned orders under the discretionary and extraordinary

              jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

              India.



              8.       Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.




                                                           [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]



       Digitally
       signed by
       SONALI
SONALI MILIND
MILIND PATIL
PATIL Date:
       2026.08.27
       17:34:15
       +0530




                                                Page 4
              Sonali