IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.56 of 2026 Date of Decision: 20.05.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Rajinder Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Sh. Mohan Lal … Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dinender Panwar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Instant criminal petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, lays challenge to order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.V, Shimla, in Cr.M.A No.5086 of 2025, whereby an application filed by the petitioner-accused (in short “accused”) under Section 45 read with Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act for comparison of signatures of the respondent-complainant (in short “complainant”), came to be rejected. 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “Act”) in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that two cheques, Ext.CW-1/A and Ext.CW-1/B, issued by the accused towards 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 discharge of lawful liability, came to be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused. Since despite having received legal notice, accused failed to make the payment within stipulated time, complainant had no option, but to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law, which are pending adjudication. 3. After closure of defence evidence, accused filed an application under Sections 45 & 73 of Indian Evidence Act (Annexure P-5) for comparison of signatures of the complainant, but the same was dismissed vide impugned order dated 10.10.2025. In afore background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside the afore order and allow the application, as detailed hereinabove. 4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Dinender Panwar, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that Court below, while passing impugned order, failed to take note of cross- examination of the complainant, wherein he denied his signatures on Mark D-1 and D-2 i.e. receipt and form. Mr. Panwar submitted that complainant had admitted his signatures in the complaint during the preliminary evidence and, as such, in view of the specific denial made by the complainant during cross-examination, the accused had no 3 option but to seek comparison of the signatures, but such prayer of him came to be rejected for totally unjustifiable reasons. 5. To the contrary, Mr. Sumit Sood, learned counsel for the complainant, while supporting the impugned order passed by Court below, submitted that once evidence of the accused was closed with the order of the Court and such order was never assailed before the competent Court of law, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below, while rejecting the application. Mr. Sood, further submitted that bare perusal of case file reveals that complaint having been filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Act is pending adjudication for the last 11 yeas, but on one pretext or the other, accused has not been allowing the aforesaid proceedings to conclude. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order passed by Court below, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same, as such, no interference is called for. 7. In nutshell, case of the accused is that complainant had deliberately given a false statement before the Court below on oath, and in order to prove that complainant had given false statement and wrongly denied his signatures on Mark D-1 & D-2, it is necessary to obtain the signatures of the complainant/non-applicant for comparison with his admitted signatures already on record before the Court by a 4 handwriting expert. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of documents i.e. Mark D-1 & D-2, which never came to be exhibited, but were placed on record by the accused to prove that money, which is now being claimed through cheques in question, was actually invested by the complainant in share market through accused, who had issued security cheques, which came to be misused. Since it is not in dispute that evidence of the accused was closed with the order of the court and such order never came to be assailed before competent Court of law, coupled with the fact that very purpose and intent of the complainant to file application under Sections 45 and 73 of Indian Evidence Act is just to delay and protract the trial, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Court below, while passing impugned order. 8. Leaving everything aside, this Court finds that documents i.e. Mark D-1 & D-2 were never exhibited, as such, otherwise cannot be read in evidence. Since evidence of the accused already stands closed, no fruitful purpose would otherwise be served by allowing the application under Sections 43 & 73 of Indian Evidence Act for comparison of signatures because in the event of allowing afore application, accused may have to recall the complainant for cross- examination, but since documents, which are proposed to be put to the complainant, were not exhibited, no advantage/benefit, if any, can be permitted to be taken by the accused qua the same. Moreover, 5 accused has not summoned any record from bear-bull company to prove these documents, therefore, otherwise also, application could not have been allowed, as such, the order impugned in these proceedings calls for no interference. 9. Moreover, this Court has reason to presume and believe that application, which is the subject matter of the case, is nothing, but a ploy to delay the further proceedings. Complaint was filed in month of February, 2015, but even after expiry of ten years, Court below has not been able to conclude the proceedings due to uncalled-for and frivolous applications being filed at the behest of the accused from time to time with the sole intent to delay the matter. 10. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, as such, same is upheld. Present petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 11. Learned counsel for the parties undertake to cause presence of their respective clients before Court below on 16.06.2026. Having taken note of the fact that complaint is pending for more than 11 years, this Court hopes and trusts that Court below would make all out efforts to conclude the proceedings expeditiously preferably within two months from today. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 20, 2026 (sunil)