IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No. 1223 of 2025

Date of Decision: 12.12.2025.

Rajat Kumar Bhalotia

.... Petitioner

Versus

Sai Tech Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

.... Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting. No.

For the petitioner : Ms Shalini Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondents : NEMO.

Rakesh Kainthla,Judge(Oral)

Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated

11.12.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nahahn, District Sirmaur, H.P., (learned Trial Court) whereby one gapplication filed under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

iSuraksha Sanhita (for short, “BNSS”) seeking recall of CW-1 for

further cross-examination, and another application under Section 358 of the BNSS for issuing notice to accused No. 3,

Symbiosis Life Sciences Ltd., were dismissed.

2. Ms. Shalini Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, submits that she does not press the petition insofar as it relates to the dismissal of the application under Section 348 of the BNSS and confines her challenge to the order whereby the learned Trial Court had

refused to summon accused No. 3 and directed accused No. 1 to represent accused No. 3 in the proceedings pending bPefore the learned Trial Court.

3. The record shows that the present petitioner had earlier approached this Court for the qufashing of the criminal complaint pending against him, and his petition was registered as Cr.MMO No. 166 of 2018, titled Rajat Kumar Bhalotia vs. Sai Tech Medicare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. This Court declined to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 482 of the CrPC and dismissed the petition on 11.07.2024. The petitioner thereafter approached the learned Trial Court with a prayer that notices be issued to accused No. 3, as he had nothing to do with accused No. 3. The learned Trial Court held that this plea was taken in the quashing petition filed by the petitioner/accused, but this Court held that requisite pleadings existed in the complaint to the effect that accused No. 1 was the authorized signatory/Director of the company at the time of the transaction. As such, the objection of accused No. 1 that he was not representing accused No. 3 was not acceptable. It was ordered that the accused no. 1 will continue to represent the accused no. 1, and a liberty was extended to the petitioner to prove in his defence that he had no connection with the accused no. 3.

4. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for a recall of the order, but this prayer was declined vide order dated P11.12.2025 after holding that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court, that accused No. 1/the present petitioner was the authorised signatory/Director of the company and was to represent accused No. 3, were never challenged and had attained finality. It was impermissible for the learned Trial Court to recall the order.

5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner has approached this Court by taking various pleas.

6. Ms Shalini Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that this Court had not adjudicated the Hliability of accused No. 3 in Cr.MMO No. 166 of 2018, as accused No. 3 was never before this Court. Even if there was some finding regarding the petitioner/accused No. 1 being the authorized signatory/Director of the company, the same was confined to the liability of the petitioner/accused No. 1 and had nothing to do with accused No. 3. Accused No. 3, being a juristic person, is governed by Section 305 of the Cr.P.C., and the company has to nominate a person to represent it. The Court or the complainant cannot insist that a person named by the complainant should represent the company. She relied upon the judgment of this Court in IndusInd Bank Ltd. vs. State of H.P. & Ors.

[2024:HHC:6327] in support of her submission.

7. Since the questions regarding the service of a company and the manner of its representaftion have already been adjudicated by the Court, an