2026:HHC:16286 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.440 of 2026 Date of Decision: 12.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Madhusudan ……...Petitioner Versus Inder Dev …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohinder Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: None. ______________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to order dated 02.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, affirming order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, in case No.4/2023, whereby application, having been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 348 of the BNSS for recalling/reexamination of complainant, came to be rejected. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the grounds of petition and further canvassed by Mr. Mohinder Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that Court, below while passing the impugned order, failed to take note of Section 348 of BNSS, which itself provides that application for recalling/reexamination of witness 2026:HHC:16286 2 can be filed at any stage of trial. Learned counsel representing the petitioner further argued that since petitioner-accused has specifically alleged that Cheque alleged to have been issued by him is not of his account, case of the complainant is bound to fail, but for that purpose, adequate opportunity is required to be given to petitioner-accused to reexamine/recall the complainant, so that he is confronted with the fact that Cheque alleged to have been issued by accused is not of his account, as is being claimed in the complaint filed by the complainant. He submitted that by now it is well-settled that accused should be given full opportunity to prove his innocence and in that regard, he/she can be permitted to bring on record any evidence at any stage. Lastly, Mr. Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that in case application, as prayed for, is allowed, no prejudice shall be caused to either of the parties, rather that will help the trial Court to adjudicate the case in most effective and fair manner. 3. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order dated 02.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, upholding the order dated 05.06.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. 2026:HHC:16286 3 4. Respondent-complainant (hereinafter, ‘complainant’) filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, i.e. complaint No.4 of 2023, alleging therein that Cheque bearing No.397657, dated 10.01.2013, amounting to ₹6,00,000/- of Punjab National Bank, Branch Dhalpur, issued by the petitioner-accused towards discharge of lawful liability was dishonoured vide memo dated 11.02.2013 with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’. Since despite having received 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 Negotiable Instruments Act in the competent Court of law. Complainant, after having examined himself on 18.05.2024, closed his evidence and thereafter, matter was adjourned for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On 24.07.2024, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein accused though expressed his desire to examine the witnesses in defence, however, fact remains that despite repeated opportunities, he failed to lead any evidence. Defence evidence was closed vide Court order dated 18.01.2025 and thereafter, matter was repeatedly adjourned for arguments as well as for furnishing bonds. On 21.03.2025, petitioner-accused filed an application under Section 348 of the BNSS, praying therein for recalling/reexamining the complainant, however, such application was dismissed by the learned trial Court, observing that the 2026:HHC:16286 4 defence evidence of the petitioner-accused is closed by Court order and as such, it cannot revise/review the order. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the afore order, accused preferred criminal revision petition in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, however, same was also dismissed vide order dated 02.03.2026. In the afore background, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside afore orders and allow the application filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 348 of BNSS. 6. It is not in dispute that defence evidence was closed by order of the Court on 18.01.2025 and at no point of time, petition, if any, ever came to be filed by the petitioner-accused to lay challenge to aforesaid order, rather he accepted that order and sought time for arguments on multiple occasions. Matter was adjourned on four occasions for arguments as well as for furnishing bonds. Just before conclusion of trial, petitioner-accused filed application under Section 348 of the BNSS, which rightly came to be rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that since defence evidence was closed by order of the Court, there was no occasion, if any, to accept the application. Even order dated 18.01.2025, closing defence evidence, was never challenged in the criminal revision petition, which was filed by the petitioner-accused against the order dated 05.06.2025 and as such, no illegality otherwise can be said to have been committed by the 2026:HHC:16286 5 learned Sessions Judge, while rejecting the criminal revision petition, detailed hereinabove. 7. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that numerous opportunities came to be afforded to the petitioner-accused to lead evidence, but in vain. It is only after closure of his evidence, that too at the stage of pronouncement of judgment, that he chose to file application for recalling/reexamination of complainant and as such, both the Courts below rightly arrived at a conclusion that application is nothing, but a mere tactic to delay the trial. Otherwise, this Court finds that reasons placed on record for recalling/reexamining the complainant are not sustainable for the reason that it was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner that Cheque alleged to have been issued by him towards discharge of lawful liability is not of his account, but yet he failed to confront complainant qua aforesaid fact during his cross-examination. It is not in dispute that in averments contained in the complaint, factum with regard to issuance of Cheque from account No.337800105014468 of Punjab National Bank, Dhalpur Branch, was mentioned. If it is so, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused that factum with regard to Cheque being of another account, came to the notice of the petitioner-accused at the stage of arguments. 8. Since petitioner-accused failed to put relevant question with regard to Cheque, as is now being attempted to be put through 2026:HHC:16286 6 reexamination of complainant, application has been filed to fill-up the lacuna, which is not permissible. Moreover, this Court finds that complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the respondent-complainant in the year 2013. More than 13 years have passed, but till date, learned Court below has been not able to conclude aforesaid complaint and this Court having carefully perused material adduced on record, especially findings recorded in the order laid challenge in the instant proceedings, has reason to presume and believe that delay is on account of petitioner-accused, who, on one pretext or the other, has been trying his best to delay the trial. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as such, present petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. May 12, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge