2026:UHC:803 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.955 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. M.S. Bhandari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate for the respondent. 2. This criminal misc. application has been filed challenging the judgment & order dated 19.12.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Revision No.24 of 2024 as well as the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.30 of 2024. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the application under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 is not maintainable, as the impugned orders are revisable and a revision ought to have been preferred thereto. In support of this submission, learned counsel relies on the judgment dated 07.07.2025 rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.357 of 2024. Paragraph 6 thereof reads as under: “6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the view that the intention of the legislature in enacting Section 482 Cr.P.C. was to provide powers to this Court in unforeseen circumstances when no other efficacious remedy was available to the applicant under the Code of Criminal Procedure. But by the bare perusal 2026:UHC:803 of records, it clearly transpires that the applicant had an option to go in revision against the impugned order dated 23.02.2024 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri as the applicant was the opposite party before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.36 of 2023 and therefore, if he was aggrieved by the order of Sessions Judge, he could have filed revision before the High Court. My view is further fortified by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnan and another vs. Krishnaveni and another; 1997 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 544, whereby, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a second revision is not maintainable before the High Court at the instance of the same party whose revision has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge. But the party who was opposite party before the Sessions Judge in the revision, if aggrieved by order of the Sessions Judge, can maintain a revision before the High Court.” 4. This Court finds merit in the aforesaid preliminary objection. The inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS are extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, only where no other efficacious remedy exists. Here, the applicant had a clear alternate remedy of filing revision against the impugned orders. Resort to Section 528 of BNSS to bypass the statutory revisionary forum is impermissible, as consistently held by this Court and fortified by the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 241. 5. The complaint pertains to an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed in the year 2024. The Act embodies the legislative mandate for expeditious adjudication of cheque dishonour cases to ensure speedy justice and economic efficacy. In furtherance thereof, the learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the trial 2026:UHC:803 proceedings and conclude the same at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months’ from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Any unnecessary adjournment sought by either party shall be avoided. 6. The criminal misc. application is accordingly, disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 11.02.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20 dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB 987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.02.11 17:52:24 +05'30'