IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.811 of 2026 Date of Decision: 31.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ Bharat Bhushan …….Petitioner Versus Kiran Bala … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Prantap Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Through instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to issue direction to the court below to conclude the proceedings initiated at the behest of the petitioner under Section 340 read with Section 195 of Cr.P.C against the respondent expeditiously. 2. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to issue notice to the respondent, who would otherwise be unnecessarily burdened with engaging a lawyer, as the matter can be disposed of on the basis of the material already available on record. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 3. In a nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Prantap Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though on account of filing false affidavit, petitioner filed application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of CrPC against the respondent in the year 2024, but despite service, respondent is not coming forward to contest the case. He states that though aforesaid respondent was duly served, but since she failed to appear, she was not proceeded ex-parte, rather court below had been issuing fresh notices. He states respondent is intentionally not coming forward with a view to delay the proceedings initiated against her under Sections 340 and 195 of Cr.P.C. He states that since respondent was duly served at the correct address, there was otherwise no occasion for the court below to issue fresh notice, rather it ought to have decided the case on its own merits. 4. Having taken note of the aforesaid grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, and further canvassed by Mr. Prantap Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the view that once respondent was duly served, but yet she failed to put in appearance, court below ought to have decided the case on its own 3 merits by appointing some legal aid counsel on behalf of the respondent. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, HP, to issue one last notice to the respondent for a short period and in case respondent fails to come present before the Court below, it may proceed to decide the case by appointing some legal aid counsel on behalf of respondent. Needful, as has been ordered to be done in the earlier part of the judgment, shall be done expeditiously by the court below, preferably within a period of three months from today. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 31, 2026 (sunil)