2026:HHC:18701 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1274 of 2025 Reserved on: 02.04.2026 Date of Decision: 21.05.2026 Joginder Pal ...Petitioner Versus Virender Singh ...Respondent _____________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Atul Kumar Advocate. For the respondent : Ex parte vide order dated 13.03.2026, passed by the Registrar (Judicial). Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 1.12.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in Criminal Complaint No. 46 of 2023 titled Virender 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:18701 Singh vs. Joginder Pal vide which the defence evidence had been closed. (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 (NI Act). It was asserted that the accused had borrowed ₹4,00,000/- from the complainant and issued a post- dated cheque of ₹4,00,000/- to return the amount. The complainant presented the cheque at his bank, but it was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant issued a legal notice to the accused asking him to repay the amount. The notice was duly served upon the accused, but he failed to return the amount. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action against the accused as per the law. 3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of 3 2026:HHC:18701 accusation was put to him for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The statements of the complainant’s witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) were recorded. The accused opted to lead the defence evidence. The matter was listed for recording the statements of the defence witnesses. The learned Trial Court noticed on 01.12.2025 that no witness was present, hence the learned Trial Court closed the defence evidence 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 failed to appreciate the fact that the defence witness was not served. He was working in a private company where it was very difficult for him to get leave and he could not appear before the court for his examination. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 4 2026:HHC:18701 6. I have heard Mr Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused. The respondent/complainant was duly served but did not appear despite service, hence he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 13.03.2026, passed by the Additional Registrar (Judicial). 7. Mr Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in closing the defence evidence by the order of the court. The accused had taken the steps for summoning of the witnesses. He could not be faulted for the non-appearance of the witness. Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect; hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Rajinder Singh vs. Raghwa Nand 2025: HHC:21846 in support of his submission. 8. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 9. The certified copy of the order sheets shows that the statement of the complainant was recorded on 07.04.2025, and the complainant’s evidence was closed. The statement of the 5 2026:HHC:18701 accused was recorded on 02.06.2025, and the matter was listed for recording the defence evidence. The office made the endorsement, ‘issued summons not received back’. A bailable warrant was ordered to be issued returnable for 1.12.2025. The office made an endorsement that ‘a bailable warrant was received unexecuted’. Learned Trial Court held that the case was listed for recording the statements of defence witnesses since 30.06.2025, and many opportunities had been granted to the accused, but he had failed to produce the evidence, hence the learned Trial Court closed the evidence by the order of the Court. 10. The certified copy of the order-sheet does not show any fault on the part of the petitioner/accused. He had taken the steps, and the summons were issued to the witnesses. Bailable warrants were ordered to be issued to the witnesses, and these were not executed. The accused could have only taken the steps, and thereafter, the service of the witnesses was the responsibility of the court. The Court could not have closed the evidence without fulfilling its responsibility by ensuring the service on the witnesses. The matter would have been different had the accused not taken any steps to effect the service. 6 2026:HHC:18701 However, in the present case, the petitioner had taken the steps, and he cannot be faulted. 11. Therefore, the learned Trial Court erred in closing the evidence of the accused. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, and the order passed by the learned Trial Court is ordered to be set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to summon the witnesses and thereafter proceed as per law. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information. 12. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. 13. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 21st May, 2026 (ravinder)