JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is maintained by the petitioners for quashing and setting aside the impugned order, dated 14.3.2019, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.2, Nalagarh, District Solan, in Case No.117/2 of 2011, titled H.P. Financial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s PSJ, Communication Pvt. Ltd, whereby an application filed by the petitioners seeking permission for summoning the original record was dismissed. 2. The key facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners had applied loan from the respondent-Corporation in the year 2001, which was disbursed to the Company at different times, however, in the month of September, 2002, petitioners cease to be Directors from the aforesaid company i.e. M/s PSJ Communication, Pvt. Ltd. The Police Officials of Police Station Nalagarh, District Solan, registered FIR, at the instance of respondent-Corporation, wherein it has been alleged that the Directors of M/s PSJ Communication, Pvt. Ltd, have misappropriated the hypothecated goods and have committed the alleged offence. Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed the cancellation report, wherein no criminal case has been made out against the Company and respondent has already in possession of mortgaged property of the Company and the amount can be recovered after selling the same. It was further mentioned in the Cancellation Report that the respondent-Corporation has already sold the properties for an amount of Rs.3,05,00,000/- (rupees three crores five lacs only) through auction. Thereafter, petitioners moved an application, under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, for summoning the Investigating Officer alongwith complete record of investigation in FIR No.98 of 2006, Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan. It is averred in the application that during defence evidence, it has been come out on record that concerned Transport Authority, Nalagarh, has not brought record in respect of removing or carrying any machine and other items from the factories premises. Therefore, it is necessary to summon the concerned Investigating Officer alongwith report. 3. The petitioners maintained an application for summoning the original record, whereby the said application was dismissed, vide order dated 14.3.2019. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the impugned order, dated 14.3.2019, passed by the learned Court below, the petitioners maintained the present petition. 5. Therefore, it is necessary to summon the concerned Investigating Officer alongwith report. 3. The petitioners maintained an application for summoning the original record, whereby the said application was dismissed, vide order dated 14.3.2019. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the impugned order, dated 14.3.2019, passed by the learned Court below, the petitioners maintained the present petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently argued that the learned Court below has not exercised the jurisdiction, which was vested in it, in accordance with law and thus, the present petition may be allowed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Cr. MMO No.484 of 2017, titled Ishwar Dass vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 16.4.2018, on this aspect. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has strenuously argued that the present petition is not maintainable and the application filed by the petitioners before the learned Court below, just to delay the proceedings and prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 8. From the perusal of record, an application under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been maintained by the petitioners-accused persons before the learned Court below for summoning the Investigating Officer alongwith complete record of investigation and statement recorded in FIR No.98 of 2006, Police Station, Nalagarh, District Solan. It is averred in the application that during defence evidence, it has been come out on record that concerned Transport Authority, Nalagarh, has not brought the record in respect of removing or carrying any machine and other items from the factories, as such, it is necessary to summon the Investigating Officer alongwith report. 9. In Cr. MMO No.484 of 2017, titled Ishwar Dass vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 16.4.2018, passed by this Court, wherein the Court can summon and call for the witnesses in the interest of justice. Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under : "65. 9. In Cr. MMO No.484 of 2017, titled Ishwar Dass vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 16.4.2018, passed by this Court, wherein the Court can summon and call for the witnesses in the interest of justice. Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under : "65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given-Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:- (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power- Of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach, or not subject to, the process of the court, or Of any person legally bound to produce it, And when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it; (b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest; (c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the part offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) when the original is of such a nature as not be easily movable; (e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74; (f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be given in evidence; (g) when the originals consists of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection. In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents." 10. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible. In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents." 10. However, the facts of the present case are to be evaluated, whether witnesses are required to be recalled in the present case or not. The entire investigation report, which the applicant-petitioners want to summon is on record and nothing will be elucidated calling again the relevant record for investigation in the matter. Therefore, this Court has gone through the record that nothing is necessary or desirable to call, i.e. any document from Incharge of Police Station, Nalagarh. Since, the closure report prepared in favour of the petitioners is available, nothing is necessary to be summoned. Even otherwise, also if it being so or postulate for the sake of arguments that somewhat is laying supporting the defence before Police Station, Nalagarh, accused persons-petitioners might have easily obtained the same. As the case is pending before the learned Court below since 2011 and FIR pertains to 2006. Therefore, it appears that application is filed now, just to delay the proceedings, whereas ample opportunity for cross-examination of complainant's witnesses as well as for defence has already been granted. While accused persons-petitioners filed list of witnesses in defence, but name of concerned investigator or any other police officials is nowhere found figured. Even otherwise, when they had not taken any steps and the facts were already in their knowledge, now, at this moment, the petitioners have no cause. Further more, the present petition is just to delay the proceedings. So, in these circumstances, the impugned order dated 14.3.2019, passed by the learned Court below is just and reasoned and needs no interference. 11. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the present petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 22nd August, 2019. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.