Bharat Bhushan v. Kiran Bala
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 528
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 195, 340
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, HP, to…
Judgment
disposed of on the basis of the material already available on record. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2
#3. In a nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Prantap Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though on account of filing false affidavit, petitioner filed application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of CrPC against the respondent in the year 2024, but despite service, respondent is not coming forward to contest the case. He states that though aforesaid respondent was duly served, but since she failed to appear, she was not proceeded ex-parte, rather court below had been issuing fresh notices. He states respondent is intentionally not coming forward with a view to delay the proceedings initiated against her under Sections 340 and 195 of Cr.P.C. He states that since respondent was duly served at the correct address, there was otherwise no occasion for the court below to issue fresh notice, rather it ought to have decided the case on its own merits.
#4. Having taken note of the aforesaid grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit, and further canvassed by Mr. Prantap Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the view that once respondent was duly served, but yet she failed to put in appearance, court below ought to have decided the case on its own 3 merits by appointing some legal aid counsel on behalf of the respondent.
#5. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, HP, to issue one last notice to the respondent for a short period and in case respondent fails to come present before the Court below, it may proceed to decide the case by appointing some legal aid counsel on behalf of respondent. Needful, as has been ordered to be done in the earlier part of the judgment, shall be done expeditiously by the court below, preferably within a period of three months from today. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. July 31, 2026 (sunil) (Sandeep Sharma), Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 195, 340.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 31 Jul 2026. The bench was SANDEEP SHARMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.