2025:UHC:7991 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/675/2024 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. In this application, filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, applicant has challenged order dated 29.05.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nainital in Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2023 (Smt. Anju Khanna vs. State of Uttarakhand & another). 4. By the impugned judgment, revision petition filed by respondent no. 2 was allowed. The order passed by Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Nainital in proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was set aside and the matter was remanded to Sub-Divisional Magistrate for deciding the case afresh, as per law. 5. Learned State Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the observations made in para 32, 33 & 34 of the impugned judgment, where it was observed that in the order-sheet signature of Presiding Officer are not present on various dates e.g. 04.05.2020, 25.06.2020 and 24.08.2020 and the revisional court has expressed surprise as to how the statement of Patwari was recorded when Presiding Officer was not present in court. Perusal of aforesaid paragraphs further indicates 2025:UHC:7991 that Presiding Officer was not available in court on aforesaid dates and the order- sheets, regarding these dates, were filled on 24.08.2020. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submits that due to lockdown imposed in view of COVID-19 pandemic, Presiding Officer could not hold the court on certain dates, therefore, that cannot be a valid reason for setting aside the order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nainital. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, this Court is of the considered view that learned Sessions Judge has given valid reasons for remanding the matter back to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nainital. 8. Since applicant has challenged remand order and the lis is yet to be decided by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with revisional order passed by learned Sessions Judge. 9. Accordingly, C-528 application is disposed of by directing Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nainital to make endeavour to decide Criminal Case No. 11/10 of 2016, after hearing both the parties, as early as possible, but not later than eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 09.09.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30 f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A5 8531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.09 06:41:24 -07'00' 2025:UHC:7991