Bombay High Court
HAUSABAI DADARAO TAYDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The dismissal of the private complaint for want of prosecution is upheld; illiteracy and remote residence do not excuse the complainant's failure to prosecute.
Summary
The complainant, an illiterate resident of a remote area, filed a private criminal complaint under Sections 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against several respondents on 27 April 2022. The case was listed repeatedly before the trial court, but the complainant failed to appear on 16 of the 26 occasions, appearing only on 10 dates. The trial court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution on 9 March 2026. The complainant sought leave to appeal the dismissal, arguing that her illiteracy and remote residence justified her non‑appearance. The High Court examined the record, noted the prolonged neglect of the proceedings, and held that mere illiteracy or remote residence does not excuse a failure to diligently prosecute a private complaint. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the dismissal.
Issues considered
- Whether illiteracy and residence in a remote area constitute sufficient grounds to excuse a complainant's failure to prosecute a private criminal complaint.
- Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the private complaint for want of prosecution.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 34, 504, 506
Subjects
- private complaint
- want of prosecution
- illiteracy
- remote area
- Indian Penal Code
- criminal procedure
- leave to appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43119
ALP-31-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 31 OF 2026
HAUSABAI DADARAO TAYDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
.…
Mr. Subhash K. Savangikar, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar, APP for Respondent No.1
Mr. Shankar B. Kendre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5
.…
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 22 September, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23 September, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Original complainant, who instituted private
complaint alleging commission of offence under Sections 504 and
506 read with 34 of I.P.C., is dissatisfied by the order passed by
trial Court dated 09.03.2026 on Exhibit-1 in S.C.C. 501 of 2022,
dismissing complaint for want of prosecution.
2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the present
applicant had instituted the above complaint alleging commission
of offence under Sections 504 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C.
against the respondents. That, matter appeared on the board
1 of 3
(( 2 )) ALP-31-2026
almost 26 times and complainant was present on only 10 dates, but
was absent on 16 dates. The applicant is illiterate person and
moreover, resides in the remote area and as such, the applicant had
no knowledge about the status of the matter filed by her. Learned
trial Court has dismissed the application for want of prosecution and
therefore, for above reasons learned counsel prays to restore the
matter by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 09.03.2026.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed
the application, pointing out that the matter is three years old, that
the complainant was repeatedly absent, and that she failed to
prosecute the matter. Despite sufficient opportunity having been
granted, no steps were taken, and the impugned order came to be
passed, which, according to him, is justified. Learned counsel also
placed on record an affidavit to show that the applicant was
undergoing training and, therefore, submitted that the relief sought
may be granted.
4. Heard. Perused the record. Copies of rozanama are also
placed on record. It emerges that present applicant had instituted
private complaint under Sections 504 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C.
2 of 3
(( 3 )) ALP-31-2026
against the respondent. The complaint was instituted on 27.04.2022.
Copies of rozanama show that, matter appeared on the board
regularly i.e. on 15.06.2022, 25.06.2022, 03,08,2022, 04.11.2022
and so on. It appears that, the complainant was absent as many as 16
times. Therefore, apparently, there is negligence on the part of the
complainant conducting the proceeding instituted by her. The
impugned order is of 2026. For three years the matter seems to gone
unattended for sufficiently long time. As pointed out, it does appear
that learned trial Court has posted the matter for orders of dismissal
on 23.02.2026, 27.02.2026 and finally on 09.03.2026. The
complainant failed to appear and contest the proceedings, therefore,
impugned order has been passed. Indeed, there has been a failure on
the part of the complainant to prosecute the matter. Mere illiteracy or
residence in a remote area cannot be considered sufficient grounds to
excuse the complainant’s failure to diligently prosecute the matter. No
good case is made out. Therefore, following order is passed.
ORDER
Leave is refused.
[ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ]
SMS
3 of 3
Checking your session…