IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.677 of 2026 Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited …….Petitioner Versus Sanjay Kumar … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 24.04.2026, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.II, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby evidence of the complainant in proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been closed, petitioner-complainant has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, praying therein to set aside the aforesaid order and grant one more opportunity to lead the evidence. 2. Having regard to the nature of nature and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this courts sees no necessity 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 notice to issue notice to the respondent, who in the event of notice being issued, would otherwise be unnecessarily burdened the legal proceedings, which can be disposed of on the basis of material available on record. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner- complainant and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds that though despite repeated opportunities, complainant failed to lead evidence, as such, Court below had no option but to close the evidence of the petitioner-complainant by the impugned order. Though this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order laid challenge in the instant proceedings, however, by way of indulgence and taking note of undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant that evidence shall be produced on the next date of hearing, this Court deems it fit to grant one opportunity to the petitioner-complainant to lead evidence subject to payment of costs amounting to Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent. Ordered accordingly. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and order dated 24.04.2026, in as much as evidence of the petitioner-complainant was closed, is quashed and set-aside with a direction to the petitioner-complainant to remain present before the 3 court below on 24.07.2026, enabling it to fix one date for recording the statement of the complainant. In case petitioner fails to examine himself on the date fixed by the Court below, order dated 24.04.2026, shall automatically revive and no more opportunity would be granted to the petitioner-complainant. It is made clear that petitioner- complainant shall only be permitted to lead the evidence on the date to be fixed by the court below subject to production of receipt qua the payment of cost in favour of the respondent. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 02, 2026 (sunil)