2025:HHC:21846 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 217 of 2025 Reserved on: 3.7.2025 Date of Decision: 09.07.2025. Rajinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Raghawa Nand ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Pooja Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. R.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 18.1.2025, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court), in Criminal Complaint No. 936 of 2013, titled Raghwa Nand Vs. Rajinder Singh, vide which the opportunity to lead the defence evidence was closed. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:21846 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. The matter was listed for the defence evidence on 18.1.2025, when the learned Trial Court closed the evidence by the order of the Court. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present petition asserting that he had submitted the list of witnesses to be examined in defence and deposited the expenses to summon them. Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate this fact and closed the evidence by the order of the Court. Once the petitioner had taken the steps, he could not have been deprived of his right to lead evidence. Hence, the petition. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent; however, none appeared despite service. 5. I have heard Ms. Pooja Verma, learned vice counsel for Mr. R.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3 2025:HHC:21846 6. Ms. Pooja Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had taken the steps to summon the witnesses. Learned Trial Court failed to notice this fact and proceeded to close the evidence by the order of the Court. There was no fault on the part of the petitioner, and he should not be penalised and prevented from proving his defence. Hence, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order dated 18.1.2025, passed by the learned Trial Court, be set aside. 7. I have given considerable thought to her submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. It appears from the certified copy of the order that witness Tek Ram was not present despite service on 15.6.2024, hence non-bailable warrants of arrest were ordered to be issued to secure his presence returnable for 26.7.2024. The warrants were not executed and the matter was adjourned for 28.8.2024, 5.10.2024, 23.11.2024 and 26.12.2024. On 26.12.2024, the Court ordered that the process issued for the service of DWs was not received back; hence, the matter was listed on 18.1.2025 as being the last opportunity. The Court proceeded to close the evidence by the order of the Court on 18.1.2025. 4 2025:HHC:21846 9. The order sheets show that the grievance of the petitioner is justified. The process was not received back, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. It was the responsibility of the Court to execute the process, and this responsibility cannot be shifted to the accused. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court closing the evidence of the petitioner is not justified. 10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the order dated 18.1.2025, passed by the learned Trial Court, is ordered to be set aside. 11. Learned Trial Court is directed to summon the defence witnesses and thereafter proceed further as per law. 12. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for information. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 9th July, 2025 (Chander)