Allowed¶34

Bhavneet Singh v. M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Oct 2025CRMMO/702/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cr. MMO No. 702 of 2025 (HP High Court, decided 7.10.2025, Virender Singh J): S.528 BNSS petition by accused against closure of defence evidence in S.138 NI Act complaint; DW summons not received back served or unserved; dasti summons and last opportunity; duty of trial Court to ensure service of DWs even by coercive steps; order dated 16.6.2025 of ACJM Court No. 2 Shimla set aside; matter to 28.10.2025; costs Rs. 20,000/- to Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund 2025.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16.6.2025 of the trial Court set aside; matter to be taken up by the trial Court on 28.10.2025; accused to take steps for service of DWs within three days, whereupon the trial Court is at liberty to take even coercive steps to ensure the presence of the DWs. ¶34

Bhavneet Singh Vs M/S Mahindra and Mahindra… — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 16.6.2025 closing the petitioner/accused's right to lead defence evidence could stand where the accused had taken steps for service of the DWs (as per the concerned Ahlmad's noting) and the summons issued to DW-1 had not been received back, either served or unserved.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Once the accused has taken steps for the service of the DWs, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to ensure their service, even by taking coercive steps.

¶33

Key takeaways

The accused made out a case for allowing the petition; accordingly the petition was allowed subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/-, and the trial Court's order dated 16.6.2025 was set aside, with the matter ordered to be taken up by the trial Court on 28.10.2025.ratio¶34
The accused was directed to take steps for the service of the DWs within three days; in the eventuality of steps being taken within the prescribed period, the trial Court would be at liberty to take even coercive steps to ensure the presence of the DWs so summoned.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Section 528 BNSS by accused Bhavneet Singh against order dated 16.6.2025 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla, closing his right to lead defence evidence in a Section 138 N.I. Act complaint case (case No. 9003114/2013). Complainant's evidence had been closed on 29.2.2024 and the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 22.5.2024; although the accused had taken steps for service of the DWs (dasti summons to DW-1 having been ordered on 14.11.2024), the summons had not been received back either served or unserved. Held: once the accused has taken steps for service of the DWs, it was incumbent on the trial Court to ensure their service, even by taking coercive steps. Petition allowed subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/- payable to the Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund, 2025; the order dated 16.6.2025 was set aside; matter listed for 28.10.2025, with directions that the accused take fresh steps for service of DWs within three days and liberty to the trial Court to take coercive steps to secure their presence.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr. MMO No.702 of 2025 Decided on : 7.10.2025

¶3

Bhavneet Singh …Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

¶6

…Respondent

¶7

Coram

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the petitioner	:	Mr. Ravinder Advocate.	Singh Chandel,
For the respondent	:	Ms. Seema Advocate.	K. Guleria,

¶10

Virender Singh, Judge (oral).

¶11

Petitioner Bhavneet Singh has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), against the order dated 16.6.2025, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’) in case No. 9003114/2013, titled as, ‘M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. versus Bhavneet Singh’.

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Vide order dated 16.6.2025, right of the

¶16

petitioner to lead defence evidence has been closed by the learned trial Court.

¶17

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

¶18

Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, before this Court, as emerge from the record, are as under:

¶19

Complainant M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. had filed a complaint, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, against the accused. The learned trial Court has taken the cognizance, vide order dated 4.5.2013. After securing the presence of accused, notice of accusation was put to accused, vide order dated 23.7.2019. Thereafter, the complainant was directed to adduce evidence. The evidence of the complainant was closed, vide order dated 29.2.2024. The entire incriminating evidence against the accused was put to him, under Section 313 Cr. P.C., on 22.5.2024. Thereafter, on the request of the accused, the case was listed for DWs.

¶20

¶21

4.1 On 14.11.2024, following order was passed by

¶22

the learned trial Court:

¶23

“An application seeking exemption from personal appearance on behalf of accused filed by his counsel, which is considered and allowed for the reasons stated therein. The application after due completion be tagged with the main case file.

¶24

No DWs present. Time prayed. Allowed subject to last opportunity. Dasti summons be issued to DW at Sr. No. 1 and notice be issued to DW at Sr. No. 3 on filing CA within 7 days for 13.12.2024.”

¶25

4.2 Thereafter, the case was taken up on

¶26

26.12.2024 for proper orders and adjourned for 18.3.2025, by directing the accused to comply with the order dated 14.11.2024, subject to last opportunity.

¶27

4.3 On 13.5.2025, the matter was again adjourned

¶28

due to the fact that Presiding Officer was on leave, for 16.6.2025. On 16.6.2025, right of the accused to lead defence evidence was closed by the order of the Court.

¶29

Aggrieved from the said order, accused is before this Court, challenging the order dated 16.6.2025, mainly on the ground that despite steps having been taken for the service of DWs, as depicted in the noting made by the

¶30

¶31

concerned Ahlmad, summons issued to DW-1 were not received back, either served or unserved.

¶32

Heard.

¶33

Once, the accused has taken steps for the service of DWs, then, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Court to ensure the service of DWs, even by taking coercive steps.

¶34

Considering the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the view that accused is able to make out a case, in his favour, for allowing the present petition. Consequently, the petition is allowed, subject to costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with the Himachal Pradesh Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund,2025. Order dated 16.6.2025, passed by the learned trial Court, is set aside and the matter is ordered to be taken up by the learned trial Court, on 28.10.2025.

¶35

Parties to the lis, through their counsel, are directed to appear, before the learned trial Court, on the date given.

¶36

Thereafter, the accused shall take steps for the service of DWs, within three days. In the eventuality of steps being taken, within the prescribed period, the

¶37

¶38

learned trial Court would be at liberty to take even coercive

¶39

steps to ensure the presence of DWs, so summoned.

¶40