Allowed¶24

Monika v. Ajay Kumar

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Nov 2025CRMMO/453/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.528 BNSS petition; closure of evidence set aside; steps taken for summoning witnesses; summons not received back served or unserved; duty of trial Court to ensure service of PWs; coercive steps; Family Court Kangra at Dharamshala; case No. 125 Cr. P.C./78/2023; Monika versus Ajay Kumar; Power Grid Corporation of India salary proof; diet money and process fee; remand to summon prosecution witnesses; Cr. MMO No.453 of 2025; Justice Virender Singh; decided 4.11.2025; Himachal Pradesh High Court.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 25.4.2025 of the trial Court set aside; matter remanded to the trial Court to summon the prosecution witnesses, with liberty to take even coercive steps; parties directed to appear before the trial Court on 20.11.2025; pending applications disposed of. ¶24

Monika Vs Ajay Kumar — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court was justified in closing the evidence of the petitioner on 25.4.2025, when the petitioner contended she had taken steps for summoning the witnesses and the summons had not been received back.

¶9

Court's answer

Once the petitioner has taken steps for summoning the PWs and the summons issued have not been received back either served or unserved, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to ensure the service of the PWs, even by taking coercive steps.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner cannot be penalized by closing her evidence merely because the summons have not been received back; since she had taken the steps, it was for the trial Court to ensure service of the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

Key takeaways

The order dated 25.4.2025 passed by the trial Court does not sustain in judicial scrutiny by this Court and is set aside; the matter is remanded to the trial Court to summon the prosecution witnesses, with liberty to take even coercive steps, and the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20.11.2025.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Virender Singh, Judge, oral) — Cr. MMO No.453 of 2025, reserved 14.8.2025, decided 4.11.2025. Petitioner Monika, under Section 528 BNSS, challenged the order dated 25.4.2025 of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala (case No. 125 Cr. P.C./78/2023, 'Monika versus Ajay Kumar') closing her evidence. She had taken steps on 19.7.2024 (diet money and process fee) to summon the dealing hand of Power Grid Corporation of India to prove the respondent's salary, but summons were never received back served or unserved across adjournments (16.9.2024, 11.11.2024, 21.12.2024, fresh summons for 3.3.2025). Held: once steps are taken, it is incumbent on the trial Court to ensure service of PWs, even by coercive steps; the petitioner cannot be penalized for non-receipt of summons by closing her evidence. Order dated 25.4.2025 set aside; matter remanded to summon the prosecution witnesses, with liberty to take coercive steps; parties to appear on 20.11.2025; petition allowed; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

2025:HHC:36877

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

	Cr. MMO No.453 of 2025 Reserved on : 14.8.2025 Decided on : 4.11 .2025
Monika	…Petitioner
Versu	s
Ajay Kumar	…Respondent
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Whether approved for reporting?¹	Singh, Judge.
For the petitioner : Mr.	Suneel Awasthi, Advocate.
For the respondent : Ms vice Adv	Vandana Thakur, Advocate Mr. Surinder Saklani, ocate.
Virender Singh, Judge (oral) .

¶4

Petitioner Monika has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), challenging the order dated 25.4.2025, passed by the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in case No. 125 Cr. P.C./78/2023, titled as, ‘Monika versus Ajay Kumar’.

¶5

1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶6

¶7

Vide order dated 25.4.2025, the learned trial Court has closed the evidence of petitioner Monika.

¶8

For the sake of convenience, parties to the present lis, are referred to, in the same manner, in which, they have been referred to, by the learned trial Court.

¶9

It is the case of the petitioner that the learned trial Court has wrongly closed the evidence, as, she has taken the steps for summoning the witnesses.

¶10

On the basis of above facts, Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate for the petitioner has prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed by setting aside the order dated 25.4.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, and opportunity to lead evidence be given to the petitioner.

¶11

As per the document, annexed with the application, on 15.7.2024 when the case was listed for PWs, on that date, the learned trial Court has passed the order for adjourning the matter, for petitioner’s evidence on 16.9.2024, on taking steps within a week.

¶12

Consequently, the petitioner has taken the steps on 19.7.2024, by depositing the diet money and process fee, for the dealing hand of Power Grid Corporation of India to prove the salary of respondent Ajay Kumar.

¶13

¶14

On 16.9.2024, when, the matter was listed for

¶15

PWs, on that date, summons issued to the witnesses, have not been received back, either served or unserved, and the matter was ordered to be adjourned for 11.11.2024, and notice to PWs were ordered to be issued, on old PF. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for 21.12.2024. On that date also, summons issued to PWs not received back. As such, the learned trial Court has ordered to issue fresh summons to the PWs, for 3.3.2025, on old PF. Ultimately, the learned trial, on 25.4.2025, has closed the evidence of the petitioner, by passing the following order:

¶16

“No PW is present today. Time prayed. Perual of the file shows that more than sufficient number of opportunities have already been granted to the petitioner for leading PWs. The case pertains to the year 2022 and no further opportunity for PW is warranted. Hence, in the interest of justice, the opportunity to lead PWs is hereby closed by the order of the Court.”

¶17

Once, the petitioner has taken the steps for summoning the PWs and summons issued have not been received back, either served or unserved, in such situation, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to ensure the service of PWs, even by taking coercive setps.

¶18

¶19

From the perusal of the above orders, this Court is of the view that petitioner has already taken steps for summoning the witnesses. Once, the petitioner has already taken the steps for summoning the witnesses, then, it was for the learned trial Court to ensure the service of prosecution witnesses. Merely, for the reason that summons have not been received back, the petitioner cannot be penalized, by closing her evidence.

¶20

It is not the case here that petitioner has not taken the steps. In such situation, order dated 25.4.2025, passed by the learned trial Court does not sustain in the judicial scrutiny by this Court.

¶21

Consequently, order dated 25.4.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, in case No. 125 Cr. P.C./78/ 2023, titled as, ‘Monika versus Ajay Kumar’, is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court to summon the prosecution witnesses, for the date to be fixed by it. In order to secure the presence of prosecution witnesses, learned trial Court is at liberty to take even coercive steps.

¶22