Bombay High Court
NITISH BHUKHANWALAversusM/S SBI GLOBAL FACTORS LTD., AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The High Court quashed the magistrate’s orders and directed that the complainant be cross‑examined on 26 February 2026, affirming the accused’s right to cross‑examination under Section 311 of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, accused in criminal complaints, sought to recall the complainant for cross‑examination after a magistrate had issued a "no‑cross" order under Section 311 of the CrPC. Their applications for dismissal of the complaint and for recall were rejected by the magistrate and later by the Sessions Judge. The High Court noted that despite some delay, the accused have a fundamental right to cross‑examine to ensure a just decision, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Natasha Singh v. CBI. Consequently, the Court quashed the magistrate’s orders, including the "no‑cross" order, and directed that the cross‑examination be conducted on 26 February 2026 without further adjournments, urging the trial court to dispose of the complaints expeditiously.
Issues considered
- The validity of the magistrate’s "no‑cross" order under Section 311 of the CrPC
- The right of the accused to recall and cross‑examine the complainant
- Whether the earlier rejections of the petitioners’ applications can be set aside
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 311
Subjects
- cross‑examination
- Section 311 CrPC
- no‑cross order
- right of accused
- quash order
- expeditious trial
Judgment
25-30-WP756-2026+.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 756 OF 2026
Nitish Bhukhanwala and anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. and anr. …Respondents
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 757 OF 2026
M/s. Bhukhanwala Tools Pvt. Ltd. and anr. ...Petitioners
SANTOSH Versus
SUBHASH
KULKARNI M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. and anr. …Respondents
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI AND
Date: 2026.02.23
11:01:30 +0530 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 758 OF 2026
Nitish Bhukhanwala and anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. and ors. …Respondents
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 759 OF 2026
M/s. Bhukhanwala Tools Pvt. Ltd. and anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. and ors. …Respondents
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 760 OF 2026
Nitish Bhukhanwala and anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. and ors. …Respondents
AND
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 761 OF 2026
M/s. Bhukhanwala Tools Pvt. Ltd. and anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
M/s. SBI Global Factors Ltd. and ors. …Respondents
1/4
25-30-WP756-2026+.DOC
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.
Mr. A. R. Metkari, APP for the State in WP/759/2026.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 20th FEBRUARY, 2026
Oral Order:-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. 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 cross-
examination, came to be rejected.
3. The record indicates that the petitioners had Cled 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 30th September, 2025, the learned
Sessions Judge dismissed the revision applications. Thereafter
the petitioners Cled an application for recall of the complainant
for cross-examination by setting aside no-cross order dated 25 th
June, 2025.
2/4
25-30-WP756-2026+.DOC
4. 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.
5. The impugned orders, thus, deserve to be quashed and set
aside with a view to provide an efCcacious 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.
6. The Court is informed that the complaints are now listed
before the learned Magistrate on 26th February, 2026.
7. Mr. Upadhyay, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, on
instructions, submits that the petitioners will conduct the
cross-examination of the complainant on 26th February, 2026.
1 2013 (5) SCC 741.
3/4
25-30-WP756-2026+.DOC
8. The petitions, thus, stand allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (b).
9. The impugned order as well as the order dated 25 th June,
2025 of “no-cross” stand quashed and set aside.
10. The petitioners – accused shall cross-examine the
complainant on 26th February, 2026, without fail.
11. The petitioners – accused shall not seek any adjournment
for the cross-examination of the complainant.
12. In the event the cross-examination is required to be
deferred beyond 26th 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.
13. The trial Court is requested to hear and decide the
complaints as expeditiously as possible.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
4/4
Checking your session…