IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 32 of 2014 Reserved on: 28.08.2025 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 Sanjeev Sood ... Appellant Versus Raj Kishore Sharma ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Appella nt : Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Prashant Pandey, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge h The appellant has filed the present appeal against the gjudgment dated 30.11.2013 passed by learned Special Judicial iMagistrate (constituted under the NI Act), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘NI Act’). It was asserted