2026:HHC:16768 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 232 of 2026 Reserved on: 30.03.2026 Date of Decision: 14.05.2026 Satinder Goel ...Petitioner Versus Pawan Kumar Gazta ...Respondent _____________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : M/s Yuyutsu Singh Thakur & Munish Kumar, Advocates. For the respondent : None. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner (accused before the learned trial Court) has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 24.07.2025 and 23.02.2026 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in a complaint titled Pawan Kumar Gazta versus Satinder Goel filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:16768 (NI Act), 1881. (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 a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. It was asserted that the accused had asked for the financial help of ₹3 lakhs, which was advanced by the complainant. A document was executed between the parties, and the accused promised to repay the amount. The accused issued a cheque of ₹3 lakhs to discharge his liability, which was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused asking him to pay the money, but he failed to do so despite the receipt of the notice. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per the law. 3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused, and when the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence 3 2026:HHC:16768 punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The complainant examined his witnesses. Learned Trial Court recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused opted to lead the defence evidence. He filed a list of witnesses on 02.09.2024 and took the steps on 14.10.2024, when the matter was listed for recording the statements of defence evidence on 15.10.2024. The learned Trial Court ordered the issuance of summons to the witnesses and recorded the statements of two witnesses on 22.11.2024. The learned Trial Court noticed on 24.07.2025 that the steps had not been taken, and closed the evidence by the order of the Court. The accused absconded thereafter, and he was arrested and released on bail on 20.02.2026. The matter was listed on 23.02.2026, when it was found that the witnesses were not present, and the evidence was closed by the order of the Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in closing the evidence on 24.07.2025, when the accused or his counsel was not present. 4 2026:HHC:16768 The absence of the accused and the counsel was justified as the matter was fixed on 19.06.2025, but was taken up on 24.07.2025 pursuant to an administrative office order dated 12.06.2025. The accused could not be faulted for his non-appearance. The accused had complied with the procedural requirement, and statements of two witnesses were recorded. Learned Trial Court failed to take effective coercive steps by issuing bailable warrants or non-bailable warrants against the witnesses to secure their presence. The witnesses are not willing to appear before the Court, and the assistance of the Court is often required. Learned Trial Court held that sufficient opportunities were provided to the accused to produce the evidence, but failed to look into the order sheet to determine the cause of the non- appearance of the witnesses. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 6. M/s Yuyutsu Singh Thakur and Munish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in closing the petitioner’s evidence without providing an opportunity to the accused to lead the evidence. This has deprived the accused of his valuable right to defend 5 2026:HHC:16768 himself. Hence, they prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. They relied upon the judgment of this Court in Satinder Goyal versus Megh Raj Dhangta 2024:HHC:9341 in support of their submission. 7. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The order sheet maintained by the learned Trial Court shows that the accused had not taken the steps initially, and when the matter was listed on 15.10.2024 as a last opportunity to produce the evidence, he filed a list of witnesses on 02.09.2024 and deposited the diet money on 14.10.2024. Learned Trial Court ordered the issuance of the summons, and the statements of two witnesses were recorded on 22.11.2024. Thereafter, the witnesses were ordered to be summoned, but the accused failed to take the steps as per the endorsement made by the office. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had no option but to close the defence evidence by the order of the Court. 6 2026:HHC:16768 9. Learned Trial Court had passed the order on 24.07.2025; however, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition on 18.03.2026. No explanation for the delay has been provided by the petitioner. The learned Trial Court had again closed the evidence by the order of the Court on 23.02.2026, but that order is meaningless because the evidence was already closed on 24.07.2025 by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, no advantage can be derived from the order dated 23.02.2026. 10. In Satinder Goyal (supra), the Court noticed that he had taken steps on every date, and summons were issued. The witnesses were served, but no coercive steps were taken to secure their presence, and this Court held that the learned Trial Court was not justified in closing the evidence. In the present case, the accused had not taken the steps as per the report of the Registry. Therefore, the judgment in Satinder Goel (supra) will not help the petitioner. 11. The record shows that the accused is trying to prolong the matter. The matter was initially listed for recording the defence witnesses, but no witness was produced. When the 7 2026:HHC:16768 matter was listed for producing the defence witnesses as the last opportunity on 15.10.2024, the diet money was deposited on 14.10.2024, knowing fully well that it was impossible to summon the witnesses for 15th October on a diet money having been deposited on the previous day. Thereafter, the accused failed to take the steps by depositing the process fee. Therefore, the learned Trial Court was justified in closing the evidence by the order of the Court. 12. Therefore, the present case is not such as would require the intervention in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Hence, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 13. The observations made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 14th May, 2026 (Nikita)