2026:HHC:28739 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 696 of 2026 Reserved on: 3.7.2026 Date of Decision: 15.7.2026. Rajinder Sharma …. Petitioner Versus Mohan Lal …. Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Dinender Panwar, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 12.12.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 5, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the application filed by the petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) under Section 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), read with Section 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:28739 353 of BNSS for summoning the witnesses was dismissed. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). It was asserted that the accused represented himself to be a representative of M/s Bear Bull Global Commodities Traders and Advisor Ltd., Jalandhar. He demanded money from the complainant for investment in the share market, and promised to return the money with interest @ 7% per month. The complainant advanced a sum of ₹3,50,000/- through account payee cheques and cash. The money was not returned, and a cheque of ₹2,50,000/- was issued to discharge the debt/liability. The cheque was dishonoured on presentation. Therefore, a complaint was filed to take action against the accused as per the law. The Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he 3 2026:HHC:28739 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The complainant led his evidence, and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). The accused was called upon to produce the evidence, but he failed to produce any evidence despite the repeated adjournments. Hence, the learned Trial Court closed the evidence by the order of the Court on 10.10.2025 and listed the matter for arguments. 3. The accused filed an application under Section 348 of BNSS, asserting that he had traced the relevant documents on 15.09.2025. The accused had taken a specific defence that the complainant had invested the money in the share market at his own risk. The accused had given security cheques to many investors, and a document to this effect was also executed. The photocopies of these documents were already marked. However, they may not be taken into consideration, and the original documents were required to be proved. Hence, the application was filed to produce the documents on record. 4. The application was opposed by filing a reply, taking preliminary objections regarding the lack of maintainability and the evidence sought to be produced being irrelevant. It was 4 2026:HHC:28739 asserted that the application was an abuse of the process of the law and was filed to delay the proceedings. The applicant/accused had failed to show any due diligence or assign any reason as to why he had failed to examine witnesses or produce the documents on record. Therefore, it was prayed that the application be dismissed. 5. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the application was filed. 6. Learned Trial Court held that sufficient opportunities were granted to the applicant/accused to produce the evidence, and when he failed to produce the evidence, his evidence was closed by the order of the Court on 15.09.2025. He filed an application under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, which was dismissed by the Court on 10.10.2025. The present application was filed thereafter. The application has been filed to prolong the proceedings. Hence, the application was dismissed. 7. Mr Dinender Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the documents sought to be produced on record were highly relevant, and the learned Trial Court erred in not accepting the documents. Therefore, he prayed 5 2026:HHC:28739 that the present petition be allowed and the applicant/accused be permitted to produce the documents. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. A Coordinate Bench of this Court held in Roshni Vs. Ramesh Kumar 2025: HHC:12480, that dragging of the proceedings unnecessarily by taking adjournments is detrimental to the interest of society, which should not be tolerated. It was observed: - “13. In the case at hand, the petitioners have been dragging on the proceedings unnecessarily before the trial Court by taking adjournments continuously. The same is detrimental to the interest of the other party. Such callousness, indifference and laxity on the part of the petitioner in pursuing his case before the trial Court cannot be tolerated. The litigant must help the Court by an effective participation for the expeditious disposal of the case.” 10. Similarly, it was held in Dheeraj Sharma Vs. Ashok Kumar 2025:HHC:3008, that the accused cannot be allowed to prolong the proceedings indefinitely in the name of a fair trial. It was observed: “9. No doubt, an accused has a right to a fair trial. Similarly, the right to lead defence evidence is a valuable right available to the petitioner/accused. However, from the facts narrated herein above, it is clearly evident that in 6 2026:HHC:28739 the case at hand, the sole motive of the petitioner/accused seems to be that of delaying the proceedings. The petitioner/accused has been grossly negligent in leading defence evidence. The conduct of the petitioner/accused in the case at hand is one of subverting justice and not serving the cause of justice. 10. Remedy available under the Negotiable Instruments Act to the complainant/respondent, in the case at hand, is a speedy, efficacious remedy. However, dilatory tactics on the part of the petitioner/accused have unnecessarily delayed adjudication of the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant.” 11. In the present case, also, repeated opportunities were granted to the accused to produce the evidence, but he failed to produce it. The accused was aware of the significance of the documents. He had put the photocopies of the documents to the complainant’s witnesses during their cross-examination. He claimed that the documents were missing earlier and were found on 15.09.2025. The circumstances in which the documents were found missing and were found were not explained. Thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly rejected this plea. 12. Since the documents sought to be produced on record were in the custody of the applicant and the applicant has not assigned any valid reason for not producing them on record earlier, the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while dismissing the application and the inherent jurisdiction of the 7 2026:HHC:28739 Court is not to be exercised to interfere with this view of the learned Trial Court. 13. In view of the above, the present application fails, and it is dismissed. 14. The observations made hereinabove are regarding the disposal of this petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 15th July, 2026 (Chander)