IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No.702 of 2025 Decided on : 7.10.2025 Bhavneet Singh …Petitioner Versus M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. …Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (oral) . Petitioner Bhavneet Singh has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), against the order dated 16.6.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in case No. 9003114/2013, titled as, ‘M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. versus Bhavneet Singh’. 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. Vide order dated 16.6.2025, right of the petitioner to lead defence evidence has been closed by the learned trial Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the present lis, are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they are referred to, by the learned trial Court. 4. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, before this Court, as emerge from the record, are as under: Complainant M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. had filed a complaint, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, against the accused. The learned trial Court has taken the cognizance, vide order dated 4.5.2013. After securing the presence of accused, notice of accusation was put to accused, vide order dated 23.7.2019. Thereafter, the complainant was directed to adduce evidence. The evidence of the complainant was closed, vide order dated 29.2.2024. The entire incriminating evidence against the accused was put to him, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., on 22.5.2024. Thereafter, on the request of the accused, the case was listed for DWs. 3 4.1 On 14.11.2024, following order was passed by the learned trial Court: “An application seeking exemption from personal appearance on behalf of accused filed by his counsel, which is considered and allowed for the reasons stated therein. The application after due completion be tagged with the main case file. No DWs present. Time prayed. Allowed subject to last opportunity. Dasti summons be issued to DW at Sr. No. 1 and notice be issued to DW at Sr. No. 3 on filing CA within 7 days for 13.12.2024.” 4.2 Thereafter, the case was taken up on 26.12.2024 for proper orders and adjourned for 18.3.2025, by directing the accused to comply with the order dated 14.11.2024, subject to last opportunity. 4.3 On 13.5.2025, the matter was again adjourned due to the fact that Presiding Officer was on leave, for 16.6.2025. On 16.6.2025, right of the accused to lead defence evidence was closed by the order of the Court. 5. Aggrieved from the said order, accused is before this Court, challenging the order dated 16.6.2025, mainly on the ground that despite steps having been taken for the service of DWs, as depicted in the noting made by the 4 concerned Ahlmad, summons issued to DW-1 were not received back, either served or unserved. 6. Heard. 7. Once, the accused has taken steps for the service of DWs, then, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to ensure the service of DWs, even by taking coercive steps. 8. Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that accused is able to make out a case, in his favour, for allowing the present petition. Consequently, the petition is allowed, subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with the Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund,2025. Order dated 16.6.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, is set aside and the matter is ordered to be taken up by the learned trial Court, on 28.10.2025. 9. Parties to the lis, through their counsel, are directed to appear, before the learned trial Court, on the date given. 10. Thereafter, the accused shall take steps for the service of DWs, within three days. In the eventuality of steps being taken, within the prescribed period, the 5 learned trial Court would be at liberty to take even coercive steps to ensure the presence of DWs, so summoned. 11. With these observations, the present petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Virender Singh ) Judge October 7, 2025 (kalpana)