Allowed¶11

Raj Kumar Dogra v. Vivek Katoch

Cr.MMO – closure of defence evidence of accused

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Apr 2026CRMMO/1197/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Closure of defence evidence; last opportunity to lead evidence; cost of Rs. 10,000 to respondent; quashing of order closing accused's evidence; conditional revival of impugned order; appearance on 17.04.2026; Judicial Magistrate First Class Manali, District Kullu; Cr.MMO No.1197 of 2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh; Justice Sandeep Sharma; Raj Kumar Dogra v. Vivek Katoch.

What did the court decide?

One last opportunity to the petitioner to lead defence evidence; impugned order dated 13.10.2025 quashed and set aside, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- cost to the respondent and appearance before the court below on 17.04.2026, failing which the impugned order shall automatically revive; petition disposed of along with pending applications, if any. ¶11

Raj Kumar Dogra Vs Vivek Katoch — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 13.10.2025 closing the evidence of the petitioner-accused should be set aside and one opportunity granted to the petitioner to lead evidence.

¶6

Court's answer

No illegality or infirmity found in the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, as the court below had repeatedly granted opportunities to the petitioner to lead evidence.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

By way of indulgence and as a last opportunity, one opportunity granted to the petitioner to lead evidence, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent.

¶10

Key takeaways

Petition allowed; order dated 13.10.2025, insofar as the petitioner's defence evidence was closed, quashed and set aside; petitioner directed to remain present before the court below on 17.04.2026 for fixing a date for issuance of notices and recording defence evidence, failing which the order dated 13.10.2025 shall automatically revive and no more opportunity would be granted.ratio¶11
Petitioner permitted to lead evidence only on the date to be fixed by the court below and subject to production of receipt of payment of cost in favour of the respondent.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Cr.MMO — closure of defence evidence of accused — Petition against order dated 13.10.2025 of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali (District Kullu) closing the petitioner-accused's evidence. Held: no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, repeated opportunities having already been granted; however, by way of indulgence and as a last opportunity, the order was quashed and set aside subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the respondent. Petitioner directed to appear before the court below on 17.04.2026 for fixing a date for issuance of notices and recording defence evidence; evidence to be led only on production of receipt of the cost payment; on failure, the order dated 13.10.2025 to automatically revive and no further opportunity to be granted.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MMO No.1197 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.04.2026

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Raj Kumar Dogra …….Petitioner Versus Vivek Katoch … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶4

For the Petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Karan Veer Dhawan, Advocate.

¶5

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶6

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 13.10.2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manali, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, whereby evidence of the petitioner-accused has been closed, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside aforesaid order and grant one opportunity to lead the evidence.

¶7

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Since it is quite apparent from the impugned order dated 13.10.2025, passed by the learned

¶8

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

¶9

¶10

court below that repeatedly, opportunities came to be granted to the petitioner to lead the evidence, no illegality otherwise can be said to have been committed by the learned Court below, while passing impugned order, however, by way of indulgence and as a last opportunity, this court deems it fit to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to lead the evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent. Ordered accordingly.

¶11

3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and order dated 13.10.2025, in as much as defence of the petitioner to lead the evidence was closed, is quashed and set-aside with direction to the petitioner to remain present before the court below on 17.04.2026, enabling it to fix a date for issuance of notices and recording defence evidence, failing which order dated 13.10.2025, shall automatically revive and no more opportunity would be granted to the petitioner. It is made clear that petitioner shall only be permitted to lead the evidence on the date to be fixed by the court below subject to production of receipt qua the payment of cost in favour of the respondent.

¶12

In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any.

¶13

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶14

April 07, 2026 (sunil)

Raj Kumar Dogra v. Vivek Katoch

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Dogra v. Vivek Katoch

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

Dinesh Chander Sharma Vs State of Hp

Bhagat Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs Ramesh Sharma

Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs Mohd. Vajid

Ashvjot Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Sanjay Ranjta Vs Kirti Pal

Rajesh Kumar Vs Chander Mohan