( 2025:HHC:30401 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.59 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.09.2025 Rajinder Singh …Petitioner Versus Madan Lal Sharma …..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. R.S Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Singh Kashyap, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) By way of the present petition, order dated 11.11.2024, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. (Circuit Court at Theog). (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court), in Case No.43/2018, titled as ‘Madan Lal Sharma versus Rajinder Singh’ has been assailed. 2. Vide order dated 11.11.2024, the learned trial Court has closed the defence evidence. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:30401 3. Perusal of the record would show that on 23.09.2024, the learned trial Court has passed the following orders:- “No DWs present. Time prayed. Allowed subject to exceptional last opportunity. Let DWs at Serial Nos.2 and 3 as per list be summoned through Bailable Warrants in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety in the like amount, returnable for 11.11.2024”. 4. Thereafter the matter was listed for 11.11.2024. On that day, although, the accused was not present, but, his counsel was present, however, right to produce defence evidence has been closed by the learned trial Court, on the ground that sufficient opportunities have been provided. Once, the presence of the witnesses i.e. DWs at Serial Nos.2 and 3 was ordered to be secured by issuing the bailable warrants, then, the learned trial Court was bound to mention the fate of those bailable warrants and to ensure the presence of those DWs by taking recourse to coercive method. Instead of waiting for the fate of those bailable warrants, the learned trial Court has proceeded further to close the evidence of the accused. ( 2025:HHC:30401 5. In such situation, this Court is of the view that the accused has every right to prove/probabilize his defence, before the learned trial Court, by leading the cogent evidence. 6. Considering all these facts, order dated 11.11.2024, passed by the learned trial Court, is not sustainable in judicial scrutiny by this Court, as such, the same is ordered to be set-aside by allowing the petition, subject to cost of Rs.10,000/-. 7. The parties, who are present before this Court are ordered to appear before the learned trial Court on 19.09.2025. From the date of securing the presence of the parties, the petitioner-accused will take the steps for summoning the DWs within a period of three days. In the event of taking the steps, the witnesses be summoned by the learned trial Court. 8. Needless to say that in order to secure the presence of the DWs, the learned trial Court is at liberty to take coercive steps. 9. It is further clarified that the non-appearance of the petitioner-accused shall not be a ground for adjournment, for examining the DWs. ( 2025:HHC:30401 10. The present petition is disposed of, in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Virender Singh) Judge September 05, 2025 (subhash)