No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C-528 No. 2286 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. (through V.C.) 2. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 336 of 2017, Amit Jain Vs. Sunil Raturi, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882, whereby the application filed by the applicant on 18.07.2025, in which they have requested that the Magistrate may summon the ITRs of the respondents for the financial year 2016- 17, was rejected. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun, the applicant preferred criminal revision being Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2025, Sunil Raturi Vs. State of Uttarakhand before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. The said revision too was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2025 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Revision No. 47 of 2025, Sunil Raturi Vs. State of Uttarakhand. Feeling aggrieved, the present criminal misc. application has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that revisional court dismissed the application of the applicant on the ground of maintainability holding that rejection of application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order against which the revision is not maintainable. It is further submitted that Judicial Magistrate, without application of mind, has dismissed the application of the applicant filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the Judicial Magistrate, after applying his judicial mind, has rightly rejected the application of the applicant filed under Section 91Cr.P.C. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 04.09.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)/Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh, Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 336 of 2017, Amit Jain Vs. Sunil Raturi, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 and the application has rightly been rejected by the court concerned. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the criminal misc. application fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. It is also made clear that since, the complaint was filed way back in the year 2017 and is pending since then, the Magistrate concerned is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today. (Alok Mahra J.) 11.02.2026 Ujjwal