IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.963 of 2025 Date of Decision: 22.04.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Laiq Ram …….Petitioner Versus Sh. Surinder Singh … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is an accused in the proceedings initiated at the behest of the respondent/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying therein to quash and set-aside order dated 11.09.2025, whereby an application filed by him under Section 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying therein to summon the record of criminal complaint No.21 of 2024, titled Liaq Ram versus Rajinder & others pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chopal, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, came to be dismissed. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material adduced on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. 3. In the instant case, complainant instituted proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law against the petitioner-accused, alleging therein that cheque amounting to Rs.40,000/-, issued by the accused towards discharge of lawful liability, came to be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in his account. Since despite having received the legal notice, accused failed to make the payment good within stipulated time, complainant had no option, but to institute proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent court of law, which are almost at the stage arguments. 4. Petitioner-accused, before arguments, filed an application under Section 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying therein to summon record of criminal complaint No.21/24, as detailed hereinabove, on the ground that complainant was an accused in afore case. It is averred in the application that since complainant was made an accused in afore case, there was no occasion for him to borrow money from him. However, learned trial Court below rejected the application on the ground that there is no 3 merit in the same and same has been purposely filed to delay the trial. 5. It emerges from the pleadings of the application that accused was a tenant in the premises of the complainant and in the year 2013, some theft of cedar wood oil took place in the rented premises. Complainant lodged a complaint, but nothing was found and as such, in the year 2024, accused filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before the Magistrate, praying therein to lodge the FIR against the complainant therein for his having allegedly stolen cedar wood oil from the rented premises. Though, afore proceedings are pending before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chopal and, till date, no order for registration of FIR has been passed against the complainant, but yet accused, with a view to defeat claim of the complainant, as set up by him under Section 138 of the Act, filed an application under Section 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying therein to summon the record of criminal complaint No.21/24, enabling him to prove that since at the time of alleged borrowing of money from the complainant, accused had no cordial relations with the complainant on account of his having filed complaint against him and as such, there was no occasion for him to borrow the money. 6. However, this Court, having carefully perused the application and the defence proposed to be set up, coupled with the fact that till date. learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 4 Chopal has not passed any order summoning the complainant as accused, this Court has reason to believe and presume that application filed under Section 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, is nothing, but an attempt to defeat the claim of the complainant as set up in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act. 7. Moreover, this Court finds that initial complaint with regard to theft was lodged in the year, 2013 and therein no specific allegation of theft, if any, against the complainant, but during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act initiated at the behest of the complainant, accused filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, seeking therein action against the complainant qua the alleged theft, which allegedly took place in the year, 2013. This Court is further of the view that defence proposed to be set up through instant application, may not be of any help to the petitioner, especially when that factum with regard to issuance of cheque as well as signatures thereupon is not in dispute. 8. There is nothing on record to suggest that complaint, if any, was ever lodged at the behest of the accused with regard to stealing of cheque, if any, by the complainant. Moreover, there is an inordinate delay of 12 years in lodging complaint with regard to alleged theft. Hence, this Court is perused to agree with the conclusion drawn by learned court below that application has been 5 purposely filed to delay the conclusion of complaint filed at the behest of the complainant under Section 138 of the Act. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 22, 2026 (shankar)