2026:HHC:18398 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.896 of 2025 Date of Decision: 19.05.2026 __________________________________________________________________________ Ramesh Chand ……...Petitioner Versus Deep Ram Thakur …....Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vinod K. Gupta and Ms. Shwetima Dogra, Advocates. __________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Instant petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to order dated 01.08.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in complaint case No.9005404/2015, titled as “Deep Ram Vs. Ramesh Chand”, whereby an application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 348 of BNSS for summoning/examining witnesses from the Police Station West and Criminal Ahlmads from the concerned Courts, came to be rejected. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the aforesaid 2026:HHC:18398 2 impugned order, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same and as such, no interference is called for. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ravinder Singh Jaswal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though while making application under Section 348 of BNSS for calling/summoning the witnesses for examination, accused had specifically mentioned in the body of the application that he besides cross-examining complainant, also intends to examine witnesses from the Police Station West and Criminal Ahlmads from the Courts to prove the record of criminal case No.900235/2016, tilted as State Vs. Deep Ram and Others, but yet Court below only allowed his application to the extent of permitting accused to further cross-examine the complainant. Mr. Jaswal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that since while cross-examining complainant, in terms of order dated 05.11.2024, accused discovered certain new facts, he filed fresh application under Section 348 of BNSS for examining the witnesses from Police Station West as well as Criminal Ahlmads from the concerned Courts to prove that complainant was convicted in criminal case registered under NDPS Act. He submitted that complainant also filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against number of persons, out of which, some of the accused were convicted, but some of the accused were acquitted. He further 2026:HHC:18398 3 submitted that otherwise also, no prejudice will be cause to the respondent-complainant in case application having been filed by him to examine the aforesaid witnesses is accepted, rather that would help the Court below to adjudicate the case in most effective and fair manner. 4. To the contrary, Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent, while supporting the impugned order, vehemently argued that second application filed under Section 348 of BNSS is not maintainable, especially when similar prayer made by the petitioner already stood rejected at the time of passing order dated 05.11.2024, whereby first application filed under Section 348 of BNSS was considered and petitioner-accused was only permitted to further cross-examine the complainant. He submitted that order dated 05.11.2024 has attained finality because no further proceedings were filed in the superior Court of law. He further submitted that otherwise also, application under aforesaid provision of law came to be filed at the stage of final arguments and as such, same rightly came to be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that prior to filing the application under Section 348 of BNSS, which is subject matter of the present case, petitioner had filed similar application praying therein for recalling the complainant for further cross-examination and for permitting him to examine the witnesses from Police Station West and Criminal 2026:HHC:18398 4 Ahlmads from the Court concerned, as detailed hereinabove, however, learned trial Court allowed the application to the extent of granting permission to accused to further cross-examine the complainant, as a result thereof, his other prayers with regard to summoning witnesses from the Police Station West and Criminal Ahlmads from the Court concerned was rejected, however, aforesaid order dated 05.11.2024 was graciously accepted by the accused, who pursuant to afore order further cross- examined the complainant. 6. 6. Since complainant during his cross-examination specifically denied factum of his having been convicted in case registered under the NDPS Act, accused moved fresh application under Section 348 of BNSS for summoning witnesses from Police Station West and Criminal Ahlmads from the Courts concerned and record room to prove factum of conviction of the complainant in case registered against him under the NDPS Act, however, such prayer of him came to be rejected on the ground that similar prayer of him made through first application (Annexure P-1) was rejected vide order dated 05.11.2024 and as such, no fresh application otherwise could have been filed with similar prayer. 7. Though at this stage, Mr. Jaswal, learned counsel representing the petitioner, attempted to argue that in his earlier application, though he had made prayer to summon the witnesses from Police Station West and Criminal Ahlmads from the concerned Courts, but since such prayer of him 2026:HHC:18398 5 was never considered and only petitioner was permitted to further cross- examine the complainant, there was no bar, if any, for petitioner-accused to file fresh application specifically praying therein to examine the witnesses from the Police Station West and Criminal Ahlmads from the concerned Courts, however, this Court is not persuaded to agree with the afore submission of learned counsel representing the petitioner for the reason that though in earlier application, which came to be decided on 05.11.2024, prayer was made by the petitioner-accused to examine the witnesses from Police Station West and Criminal Ahlmads, but such prayer of him was not considered and only he was permitted to further cross- examine the complainant. Meaning thereby, his prayer for examining the witnesses from Police Station West and Criminal Ahlmads from the concerned Courts already stood rejected by the time he filed fresh application. Once his prayer to examine witnesses, as detailed hereinabove, already stood rejected, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below while rejecting fresh application, praying therein for relief, which already stood declined vide previous order dated 05.11.2024. 8. Moreover, this Court is of the view that factum with regard to complaint having been convicted in case registered under the NDPS Act can always be proved by placing on record judgment of competent Court of law, which is per se admissible, however, factum with regard to conviction as well as acquittal of some of the accused in the cases registered at the 2026:HHC:18398 6 behest of complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may not be of much relevance as far as present case is concerned. 9. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 and as such, same is upheld. Present petition fails and dismissed accordingly. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications. May 19, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge