Ravinder Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.1181 of 2025

Date of Decision: 02.03.2026

_______________________________________________________ Ravinder Kumar & Ors. …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Anubhav Chopra, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1. Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 5.

¶8

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶9

Petitioner, who has filed private complaint bearing No.1058 of 2021, pending adjudication before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, is aggrieved by order dated 20.09.2025, whereby learned Court below directed him to produce remaining witnesses, as per list on 06.12.2025, on self responsibility.

¶10

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Anubhav Chopra, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that though petitioner can produce himself on self responsibility, but in no

¶11

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2

¶13

circumstances, he can be directed to produce the official witnesses on self responsibility, who are otherwise required to be summoned through due process of law.

¶14

3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondentState and private respondent, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate, state that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order because bare perusal of the same reveals that order laid challenge in the instant proceedings came to be passed for the reason that despite repeated opportunities, petitioner failed to lead the evidence.

¶15

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds that since petitioner failed to lead evidence despite repeated opportunities, learned trial Court proceeded to pass impugned order, thereby directing the petitioner to produce remaining witnesses on self responsibility.

¶16

5. However, having taken note of the fact that one of the witnesses named in the witness list i.e. doctor is an official witness, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that learned trial Court below ought not have directed the petitioner to produce his all witnesses on self responsibility. Petitioner,

¶17

3

¶18

being complainant, could have presented himself on the given date, but certainly without there being any notice issued by the competent Court of law, doctor intended to be produced as witness would not have come present.

¶19

6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court deems it fit to modify impugned order dated 20.09.2025 to the extent that on the given date i.e. on 06.12.2025, petitioner, being the complainant, shall present himself for his examination, but on that day, he shall not be insisted to produce remaining witness i.e. doctor. However, on the same day, complainant shall take appropriate steps for summoning the doctor through due process of law. Having taken note of steps, if any, initiated at the behest of the petitioner for securing the presence of doctor, learned trial Court shall issue summon, thereby calling upon proposed witness to give his evidence. It is clarified that in case on the given date i.e. 30.05.2026, steps are not taken for summoning the proposed evidence of doctor, learned trial Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate orders. Since petitioner has been negligent in producing the evidence, as a result thereof, delay has been caused in conclusion of criminal case, this Court deems it fit to burden the petitioner with costs amounting to Rs.2500/-, which shall be deposited with the District Bar Association, Shimla.

¶20

4

¶21

7. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms,

¶22

alongwith all pending applications.

¶23

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶24

March 02, 2026 (sunil)

Ravinder Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravinder Kumar and Ors. v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Hp

Charan Dass Vs State of Hp

Abhishek Choudhary Vs State of Hp

Amit Kumar Vs State of Hp

Ashish Sharma Vs Madhu Bahl and Others

Pravesh Kumar Vs Om Prakash