UPASANA JHINA Vs. AMIT THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dtd. 10/9/2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla (learned Trial Court) under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C vide which the application filed by the petitioner for placing on record the add tional evidence was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a complaint against the accused is pending before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, 'NI Act'). The accused filed an application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. for summoning the witness from HDFC Bank, Sanjauli Branch. Learned Trial Court held that the accused had availed effective opportunities for leading defence evidence on 16/4/2025 and 7/5/2025, and when no evidence was produced, the evidence was closed by the Court. The application was filed to circumvent the order passed by the C urt. Therefore, the application was dismissed vide o der dtd. 10/9/2025.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present petition has been filed asserting that the matter was listed for leading defence evidence on 16/4/2025 and 7/5/2025. No evidence was produced, and the opportunity to lead evidence was closed on 7/5/2025. The matter was listed on 28/5/2025, and the accused could not appear before the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court issued Non-Bailable Warrants of arrest. The accused was produced before the learned Trial Court on 28/7/2025, and she was granted bail. She changed her counsel on the same day and filed a fresh Power of Attorney. The bank statement of the accused from HDFC Bank, Sanjauli Branch, was not placed on record. The bank statement was necessary to clarify the financial transaction between the complainant and the accused and would assist the learned Trial Court in the adjudication of the dispute. The documents could not be placed earlier because the accused was busy taking care of her 82-year- old father, who had suffered a heart attack in the year 2024. He was paralysed in the year 2025 and was bedridden. The documents were necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute. Hence, it was prayed that the present petiti n be allowed and the order passed by the learned Trial Cou be set aside.