27-WP-2946-2026 To Sr No 31 And 36.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2946 OF 2026 Shree Swami Samarth Construction ...Petitioners (A proprietary firm) & Anr. Versus Bhagyashree Omprakash Jaiswal & Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2948 OF 2026 Shree Swami Samarth Construction ...Petitioners (A proprietary firm) & Anr. Versus Bhagyashree Omprakash Jaiswal & Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2950 OF 2026 Shree Swami Samarth Construction ...Petitioners (A proprietary firm) & Anr. Versus Omprakash S. Jaiswal & Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2951 OF 2026 Shree Swami Samarth Construction ...Petitioners (A proprietary firm) & Anr. Versus Omprakash S. Jaiswal & Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2952 OF 2026 Arjun 1 27-WP-2946-2026 To Sr No 31 And 36.doc Shree Swami Samarth Construction ...Petitioners (A proprietary firm) & Anr. Versus Omprakash S. Jaiswal & Anr. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2974 OF 2026 Shree Swami Samarth Construction ...Petitioners (A proprietary firm) & Anr. Versus Bhagyashree Omprakash Jaiswal & Anr. ...Respondents —————— Mr. Manohar S. Mandavkar, for the Petitioners in all WPs. Mr. Sanjay Nerurkar, for the Respondent. Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP, for the Respondent-State in WP/2946/2026, WP/2950/2026 & WP/2952/2026. Mr. Prasanna Malshe, APP, for the Respondent-State in WP/2948/2026, WP/2951/2026 & WP/2974/2026. —————— Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J. Date: June 25, 2026 P.C.: 1. In all these Writ Petitions, the challenge is to the Order dated 12th November 2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 7th Court, Dadar, Mumbai, in an application filed by the Petitioners i.e. the Accused under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), seeking recall of the Complainant PW-1 and other witnesses for cross-examination. Arjun 2 27-WP-2946-2026 To Sr No 31 And 36.doc 2. The details of the Writ Petitions/impugned Orders are as under: Sr. No. WP No. Complainant Complaint No. Cheque Amount (In Rupees) Date of Impugned Order Exhibit No. 1 WP/ 2946/2026 Bhagyashree Omprakash Jaiswal CC No.1354/SS/2016 25,00,000/- 12/11/2025 Exhibit-73 2 WP/ 2948/2026 Bhagyashree Omprakash Jaiswal CC No.1356/SS/2016 50,00,000/- 12/11/2025 Exhibit-74 3 WP/ 2950/2026 Omprakash S. Jaiswal CC No.1353/SS/2016 50,00,000/- 12/11/2025 Exhibit-72 4 WP/ 2951/2026 Omprakash S. Jaiswal CC No.1352/SS/2016 25,00,000/- 12/11/2025 Exhibit-73 5 WP/ 2952/2026 Omprakash S. Jaiswal CC No.1351/SS/2016 25,00,000/- 12/11/2025 Exhibit-72 6 WP/ 2974/2026 Bhagyashree Omprakash Jaiswal CC No.1355/SS/2016 25,00,000/- 12/11/2025 Exhibit-72 3. Mr. Mandavkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submits that although the earlier application seeking recall of the Complainant PW-1 and other witnesses for cross-examination was rejected on 1st March 2023, a new ground has now arisen and, therefore, it is necessary to set aside the ‘No Cross Order’ and permit the Petitioners to cross-examine Complainant PW-1 and the other witnesses. He submits that, after a new Advocate was appointed, it was discovered, after going through the record, that the cross-examination of the Complainant conducted in CC No.1349/SS/2016 and CC No.1350/SS/2016 has remained to be adopted in the present proceedings. Arjun 3 27-WP-2946-2026 To Sr No 31 And 36.doc 4. On the other hand, Mr. Nerurkar, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Complainant, submits that this contention was never raised earlier. In any case, he submits that the present application has been filed to delay the proceedings. He further submits that all these complaints are of the year 2016 and that, since 2021, the Petitioners have been delaying the proceedings in all these complaints only on the issue of cross-examination. He submits that the earlier application was rejected on 1st March 2023 and that, with a mala fide intention, the application has been filed after a period of more than two years seeking recall of the Complainant and other witnesses for cross-examination. 5. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out certain factual aspects. i. All these complaints have been filed either by Ms. Bhagyashree Omprakash Jaiswal or by Omprakash S. Jaiswal i.e. the husband of said Bhagyashree. The complaints were filed in the year 2016. Said Omprakash S. Jaiswal has filed four complaints and Ms. Bhagyashree Omprakash Jaiswal has also filed four complaints. However, orders passed in six proceedings are subject matter of these Writ Petitions. The aggregate cheque amount is of Rs.2.25 Crores. ii. On 24th September 2021, ‘No Cross Order’ has been passed in all these complaints. iii. Thereafter, the present Petitioners filed applications under Arjun 4 27-WP-2946-2026 To Sr No 31 And 36.doc Section 311 of CrPC, which came to be allowed by the learned JMFC/Metropolitan Magistrate on 9th October 2021 by setting aside the ‘No Cross Order’ by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/-. iv. A perusal of the Roznama shows that on 25th August 2022, although the Complainant and the learned Advocate was present, the Accused remained absent and, therefore, the matters were adjourned to 22nd September 2022. v. Thereafter, the matters were again taken up on 6th December 2022. On that date also, the Complainant and the learned Advocate were present, but the Accused remained absent and, therefore, a ‘No Cross Order’ was passed. vi. Thereafter, the Petitioners changed their Advocate and the newly appointed Advocate filed an application for setting aside the ‘No Cross Order’ on 6th December 2022. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court by Order dated 1st March 2023. vii. Thereafter, after a period of about two years, on 25th March 2025, again applications have been filed under Section 311 of CrPC in the aforesaid proceedings seeking recall of the Complainant PW-1 for the purpose of cross-examination and the said applications have been rejected by the impugned Orders dated 12th November 2025. 6. It is necessary to consider the impugned Orders in view of the factual aspects set out hereinabove. The learned Trial Court has Arjun 5 27-WP-2946-2026 To Sr No 31 And 36.doc recorded that sufficient opportunities had been granted to the Petitioners to cross-examine the Complainant PW-1 and that the earlier application had been rejected on 1st March 2023 and no new ground is raised. 7. In view of the reasons given by the learned Trial Court, it is necessary to set out Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the earlier Order dated 1st March 2023, which read as under: “6) The case is for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Record indicates that, the evidence affidavit of the complainant was filed on 04.01.2019. No cross order was firstly passed on 24.09.2021. Thereafter, the accused made application for recalling the complainant for the purpose of cross- examination. The said application was allowed subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on 10 to 12 occasions. However, the accused failed to proceed with the cross-examination of the complainant. No cross order was passed on 06.12.2022 as no one remained present on behalf of the accused when called out repeatedly. 7) The case is more than six years old. There are constant directions for expeditious disposal of 5+ years old cases. Section 143(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act prescribes that an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. As mentioned above, the evidence affidavit was filed in the year 2019. Sufficient time was granted to the accused for conducting cross-examination of the complainant. The accused has failed to avail the opportunity of conducting cross-examination even after his application for recalling the complainant was allowed on 09.10.2021. Record indicates that, the accused has delayed the proceeding by remaining absent on several occasions. As a part of fair trial, already sufficient opportunities were provided to the accused. However, the accused has failed to avail the said Arjun 6 27-WP-2946-2026 To Sr No 31 And 36.doc opportunity. No case is made out for recalling the complainant. Thus, the application is liable to be rejected.” (Emphasis added) 8. Thus, the learned Trial Court has recorded that, despite sufficient opportunities having been granted, the Petitioners failed to cross- examine the Complainant. The complaints were filed in the year 2016, and the proceedings have remained pending on the issue of cross- examination. The Petitioners have successfully delayed the trial for about 10 years. 9. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for interference in the impugned Orders. 10. For the above reasons, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.] Arjun 7