Allowed

Hari Krishan v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Apr 2026CRMMO/302/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged closure of his defence evidence in a criminal case and sought restoration, including independent expert opinion on disputed signatures. Court found no infirmity in closure but granted one final opportunity to lead defence evidence subject to Rs 10,000 cost and strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order closing defence evidence quashed; one opportunity to lead defence evidence granted subject to Rs 10,000 cost, witness list within seven days.

Hari Krishan Vs State of Hp — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Cr.MMO No.302 of 2026 Date of Decision: 08.04.2026

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Hari Krishan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh … Respondent

¶4

_______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, Advocate.

¶7

For the Respondent : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.

¶8

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶9

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

¶10

following main reliefs:-

¶11

“a. Quash and set aside the order dated 17.08.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the application filed by the Petitioner for obtaining independent expert opinion was dismissed;

¶12

b. Quash and set aside the judgment/order dated 06.03.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Revision, whereby the order dated 17.08.2024 was upheld;

¶13

c. Quash and set aside the order dated 19.03.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

No.1, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the case was fixed for defence evidence as a “last opportunity”;

¶17

d. Quash and set aside the order dated 25.03.2026 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Case No.73-II/2011 (FIR No.155/2009 dated 28.05.2009) titled as State Versus Hari Krishan whereby the defence evidence of the Petitioner was closed; and Direct restoration of the right of the Petitioner to lead defence evidence, including permission to obtain and adduce independent expert evidence with regard to the disputed signatures on document Ext. PW-1/G (NOC dated 15.10.2003).”

¶18

2. Though through instant petition, challenge has been laid

¶19

to order dated 17.08.2024, which has been further upheld by learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 06.03.2026, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, but learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case order dated 25.03.2026(Annexure P-6), whereby evidence of the petitioner has been closed, is quashed and set aside with one opportunity to lead evidence.

¶20

3. Though having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned dated 25.03.2026, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, but having taken note of undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner that entire

¶21

¶22

evidence shall be produced by the petitioner on one date, this Court is of the view that no prejudice shall be caused to either of the parties in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent. Ordered accordingly.

¶23

4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and order dated 25.03.2026, 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 09.04.2026, enabling it to fix a date for issuance of notices and recording defence evidence. List of witness shall be furnished within seven days, failing which order dated 25.03.2026, 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.

¶24

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

¶25

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶26

April 08, 2026 (sunil)

Hari Krishan v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Krishan v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagsir Singh Vs CBI

Raj Kumar Dogra Vs M/S Ashtvinayak Tours and Travels

Amrit Saini and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Naresh Chand and Another Vs State of Hp and Another

Mursaleen Vs State of Hp

Lac and Another Vs Sunpa Devi (Since Deceased through LRs Kula Nand and Anr) and Others