IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.1235 of 2024 Date of Decision: 23.03.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Kant Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Reena Devi … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Inder Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwani Dhiman, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders dated 04.09.2023, 22.06.2024 and 27.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh in case No.88 of 2022, whereby warrant of attachment of property of the petitioner came to be issued, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying therein to quash and set aside aforesaid orders and grant him one more opportunity to appear before the learned trial Court. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that on 03.05.2023, learned Court below adjourned the matter for 02.06.2023, however on that date, matter was not listed, but suddenly matter came to be listed on 04.09.2023, on which date, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and as such, Court below, taking note of absence of the petitioner, proceeded to issue warrant of attachment. 3. Though, this Court is of the view that present petition is not maintainable, however having regard to the nature of controversy and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no reason to go into aforesaid question of maintainability at this stage. Taking note of the fact that vide order dated 03.05.2023, case was ordered to be listed on 02.06.2023, but on 02.06.2023 matter was not listed, this Court, without going into the correctness of the orders impugned in the instant proceedings, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the petitioner to cause his presence before the Court below on 02.04.2026. Ordered accordingly. 4. Since order of attachment came to be issued on two counts i.e. (1) no reply to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C was filed within stipulated time and (2) petitioner failed to put in 3 appearance before the Court despite notice coupled with the fact that petitioner is ready and willing to cause his appearance before the Court below on the date fixed by this Court, impugned orders dated 04.09.2023, 22.06.2024 and 27.08.2024 passed by learned trial Court are quashed and set-aside. The petitioner is directed to remain present before the Court below on 02.04.2026, failing which, orders 04.09.2023, 22.06.2024 and 27.08.2024 would automatically revive. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 23,2026 (shankar)