IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1223 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025. Rajat Kumar Bhalotia .... Petitioner Versus Sai Tech Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting. No. For the petitioner : Ms Shalini Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : NEMO. Rakesh Kainthla,Judge(Oral) Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., (learned Trial Court) whereby one application filed under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short, “BNSS”) seeking recall of CW-1 for further cross-examination, and another application under Section 358 of the BNSS for issuing notice to accused No. 3, Symbiosis Life Sciences Ltd., were dismissed. 2. Ms. Shalini Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that she does not press the petition insofar as it relates to the dismissal of the application under Section 348 of the BNSS and confines her challenge to the order whereby the learned Trial Court had 2 refused to summon accused No. 3 and directed accused No. 1 to represent accused No. 3 in the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court. 3. The record shows that the present petitioner had earlier approached this Court for the quashing of the criminal complaint pending against him, and his petition was registered as Cr.MMO No. 166 of 2018, titled Rajat Kumar Bhalotia vs. Sai Tech Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. This Court declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482 of the CrPC and dismissed the petition on 11.07.2024. The petitioner thereafter approached the learned Trial Court with a prayer that notices be issued to accused No. 3, as he had nothing to do with accused No. 3. The learned Trial Court held that this plea was taken in the quashing petition filed by the petitioner/accused, but this Court held that requisite pleadings existed in the complaint to the effect that accused No. 1 was the authorized signatory/Director of the company at the time of the transaction. As such, the objection of accused No. 1 that he was not representing accused No. 3 was not acceptable. It was ordered that the accused no. 1 will continue to represent the accused no. 1, and a liberty was extended to the petitioner to prove in his defence that he had no connection with the accused no. 3. 3 4. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for a recall of the order, but this prayer was declined vide order dated 11.12.2025 after holding that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, that accused No. 1/the present petitioner was the authorised signatory/Director of the company and was to represent accused No. 3, were never challenged and had attained finality. It was impermissible for the learned Trial Court to recall the order. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has approached this Court by taking various pleas. 6. Ms Shalini Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that this Court had not adjudicated the liability of accused No. 3 in Cr.MMO No. 166 of 2018, as accused No. 3 was never before this Court. Even if there was some finding regarding the petitioner/accused No. 1 being the authorized signatory/Director of the company, the same was confined to the liability of the petitioner/accused No. 1 and had nothing to do with accused No. 3. Accused No. 3, being a juristic person, is governed by Section 305 of the Cr.P.C., and the company has to nominate a person to represent it. The Court or the complainant cannot insist that a person named by the complainant should 4 represent the company. She relied upon the judgment of this Court in IndusInd Bank Ltd. vs. State of H.P. & Ors. [2024:HHC:6327] in support of her submission. 7. Since the questions regarding the service of a company and the manner of its representation have already been adjudicated by the Court, and accused No. 3 or the complainant is not likely to be prejudiced by the determination of this question, no notice is being served upon accused No. 3 or the complainant. 8. The question regarding the representation of the Company before the Court was exhaustively considered by this Court in Indusind Bank Ltd. Case (supra), wherein after discussing the various judgments of different High Courts, this Court held that the Company is a juristic person and it has to nominate a person to represent it. It was observed:- “23. Therefore, it is apparent from the judgments of different High Courts that the Company is a juristic person. It is to be sued in its own name and not through any person. The summons is to be addressed to the Company, and it will be the choice of the Company to nominate a person to represent it during the proceedings. If the person does not appear, the Court will proceed further as per law, and the Company cannot take the defence that the proceedings were conducted in its absence.” 9. Therefore, the learned Trial Court fell in error while holding that accused No. 1 would represent accused No. 3 during 5 the proceedings pending before it. Such a decision has taken away the right of accused No. 3 to nominate a person, as per Section 305 of the Cr.P.C., to represent it, and amounts to forced representation of the juristic person, which is impermissible as per the judgment of this Court in IndusInd Bank Ltd. (supra). 10. There is force in the submissions of Ms Shalini Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that accused No. 3 was not before this Court in Cr.MMO No. 166 of 2018, and any finding recorded by this Court regarding the petitioner being an authorized signatory/Director of the company was only for the adjudication of the petition pending before this Court and had nothing to do with the merits of the case or the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court, as was clarified by this Court in paragraph No. 46 of the judgment. Therefore, it was impermissible for the learned Trial Court to fall back upon the observations made by this Court while adjudicating the application to hold that accused No. 1 would have to represent accused No. 3. This Court had said nothing which could have influenced the learned Magistrate. 11. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate, refusing to summon accused No. 3 and directing it to be represented by accused No. 1, cannot be sustained and is 6 hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate may summon accused No. 3 in accordance with the provisions of Section 305 of the Cr.P.C., as interpreted by this Court in IndusInd Bank Ltd. (supra). The present petition stands disposed of. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th December, 2025. (Shamsh Tabrez)