Hari Krishan Vs State of Hp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No.743 of 2026

Date of Decision: 16.07.2026

_______________________ Hari Krishan	______________ Versus	__________________ …….Petitioner
State of Himachal Pradesh		… Respondent
_______________________ 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. Paras Dhaulta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General.
_____________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge	__________________________________ (oral):

¶7

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 18.06.2026, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Case No. 73II/2011, arising out of FIR No. 155 of 2009, whereby defence of the petitioner-accused was ordered to be closed, petitioner-accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying therein to quash and set-aside aforesaid order and grant one last opportunity to lead defence evidence.

¶8

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

¶9

2

¶10

Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General,

¶11

appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He submits that no illegality can be said to have been committed by learned Court below, while passing the order impugned in the instant proceedings. This Court vide order dated 08.04.2026 had granted one last opportunity to the petitioner-accused lead defence evidence. He states that since, in terms of afore order passed by this Court, needful was not done within the stipulated time, Court below had no option, but to pass order impugned in the instant proceedings

¶12

Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused 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 same and as such, no interference is called for.

¶13

Careful perusal of order dated 08.04.2026, passed by this Court in Cr.MMO No. 302 of 2026 (Annexure P-4) clearly reveals that despite repeated opportunities, petitioner-accused failed to lead evidence, but this Court by way of indulgence granted one opportunity to the petitioner-accused to lead defence evidence, but it appears that in terms of afore order, he failed to take steps within stipulated time, as a result thereof, Court below did not permit him to lead evidence.

¶14

3

¶15

Though, having taken note of the fact that petitioner has failed to comply with the order dated 08.04.2026, passed by this Court in Cr.MMO No.302 of 2026, there appears to be no justification to grant further time, but having taken note of the fact that petitioner, who is 86 years old, was not aware of the consequences of order dated 08.04.2026, coupled with the fact that his son, who actually used to do the needful on his behalf, was unavailable on account of demise of his father-in-law, this Court by way of indulgence and subject to payment of costs amounting to Rs. 35,000/-, which shall include costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2026, if not already paid, deems it fit to grant one last opportunity to lead defence evidence. Ordered accordingly. The cost, as quantified hereinabove, shall be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh.

¶16

Since steps for summoning the defence witnesses had already been taken on 17.06.2026 and matter is stated to be listed before the Court below on 20.07.2026, this Court deems it fit to direct learned Court below to issue summons/notices to the proposed witnesses, for a date convenient to it and in case, petitioner-accused fails to produce evidence on the date fixed by Court below, his defence evidence shall be deemed to have been closed. However, it is made clear that if the cost as quantified above is not paid,

¶17

4

¶18

petitioner-accused shall not be permitted to proceed with or examine any of the defence witnesses. Ordered accordingly.

¶19

In the aforesaid terms, the present petition sands

¶20

disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.

¶21

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶22

July 16,2026 (shankar)

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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaurya Vs State of Hp and Another

Bhagirath Vs Yoginder Sharma

Bhagirath Vs Yoginder Sharma

Kewal Singh Negi Vs Baldev Singh Shandil

Rakesh Arora and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Sandeep@Jonti Vs State