2026:HHC:14729 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.586 of 2025 Date of Decision: 05.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Vishal Sood …….Petitioner Versus Smt. Kamlesh … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Dheeraj K. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Preeti, Advocate vice Mr. Himanshoo Panwar, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, lays challenge to order dated 05.05.2025, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, having been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’), came to be dismissed, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to quash and set aside aforesaid order. 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the sole reason assigned for dismissal of the application is that application under Section 311 Cr.P.C is filed after conclusion of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:14729 arguments, which finding is totally contrary to the record. While making this Court peruse records, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 05.05.2025, Court concerned, after having dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C, fixed the matter for arguments on 20.05.2025. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order, this Court finds merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant. 4. Record of Court below reveals that on 18.03.2025, petitioner- complainant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C for placing on record documents, but on the same day, Court concerned, while granting time to the opposite party to file reply, adjourned the matter to 22.04.2025. On 22.04.2025, though reply to the application was filed, but yet matter was ordered to be put up for consideration on 25.04.2025. Again on 25.04.2025, matter was adjourned to 05.05.2025 on account of absence of the accused. On 05.05.2025, learned Court below vide separate order of even date, dismissed the application filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and put up the main matter for arguments on 20.05.2025. It is evident from aforesaid order that on 05.05.2025, arguments were yet to be heard in the main case and as such, there was otherwise no question of reserving the judgment. 5. Careful perusal of the impugned order laid challenge in the instant proceedings, reveals that application filed by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C., came to be dismissed on the ground that same has been filed after conclusion of arguments. Though, order laid challenge in 3 2026:HHC:14729 the instant proceedings suggests that on 05.05.2025, Court concerned after having heard parties had reserved the judgment in main case, but as has been taken note hereinabove, aforesaid finding returned by the learned Court below is totally contrary to the record because on 05.05.2025, no arguments were heard, rather Court vide separate order rejected the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C and put up the case for final arguments on 20.05.2025. 6. It is not in dispute that till date final arguments have not been heard. Record file further reveals that on 04.02.2025, arguments were partly heard and thereafter, matter was ordered to be listed on 06.02.2025. Again on 06.02.2025, arguments were heard, but yet matter was posted on 13.02.2025. There is nothing on record to suggests that on 05.05.2025, Court after having heard the arguments reserved the judgment. If it is so, impugned order being totally contrary to the record, deserves to be quashed and set aside, being not sustainable. 7. Careful perusal of order dated 05.05.2025 clearly reveals that there is no finding on merits, rather application filed by the petitioner- complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C has been primarily rejected on the ground that same came to be filed after conclusion of the trial, which fact is totally contrary to the record, because on 05.05.2025, arguments were not heard. If it so, there was otherwise no question, if any, to Court below to reserve the judgment. Moreover, record clearly reveals that main matter is still pending, in which final arguments are to be heard. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed and impugned order 4 2026:HHC:14729 dated 05.05.2025 is quashed and set-aside, with the direction to the learned Court below to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C afresh strictly on its own merit within a period of two weeks. Interim order dated 01.07.2025 is vacated. 9. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 11.05.2026, enabling Court below to do the needful within stipulated time. Needless to say, court concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and pass appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 10. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 05, 2026 (shankar)