SHOBHA SHIVRAM VAIDYAversusLILABAI W/O RAMBHAU SUPEKAR

2026:BHC-AUG:1682
                                               -1-
                                                                        ALP-56-2025

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                  APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO.56 OF 2025

              Sau Shobha W/o. Shivram Vaidya,
              Age : 60 years, Occu. : Household,
              R/o. Javasgaon, Tq. Badnapur,
              Dist. Jalna.                                        … Applicant
                                                                 (Orig. Complainant)
                           Versus

              Lilabai W/o. Rambhau Supekar,
              Age : 46 years, Occu. : Household,
              R/o. Shivnagar, Old Jalna,
              Tq. & Dist. Jalna.                                  … Respondents
                                                                  (Orig. Accused)

                                             ......
              Ms. Vanita H. Sangole, Advocate for Applicant.
              Mr. Govind G. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent.
                                             ......

                                          CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                    RESERVED ON : 16 JANUARY, 2026
                                PRONOUNCED ON : 17 JANUARY 2026

              ORDER :


              .            Present application is for leave to file appeal against

              order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Badnapur,

              Dist. Jalna, dated 01.08.2024 dismissing the complaint for want of

              prosecution by invoking section 256 of the Code of Criminal

              Procedure.



              2.           Learned counsel for applicant pointed out that,

              complaint bearing S.C.C. No. 168 of 2017 was instituted for
                                -2-
                                                         ALP-56-2025

commission of offence under section 499, 500 and 501 of the

Indian Penal Code. That, by order dated 06.10.2017, the learned

J.M.F.C., after perusal of the complaint and documents on record,

was pleased to issue process against the respondent. After passing

the order for issuance of process, the summons were not served

upon the respondent. Thereafter, a warrant was also issued;

however, the same could not be executed against the respondent.

Consequently, the applicant also filed applications seeking issuance

of a show-cause notice to the Superintendent of Police, Jalna, for

non-service of the summons and non-execution of the warrant..



3.         Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that,

the applicant was present every date before the learned trial court,

but, she could not attend the proceedings during the COVID-19

period and on some dated during the last one year due to her

illness, namely “Arthritis”. She further submitted that, her

husband is suffering from heart disease and has undergone bypass

surgery. Due to these unavoidable medical reasons, the applicant

could not attend the court proceedings. Reasons for non

prosecution were due to Covid pandemic and as such failure to

prosecute. Moreover, according to learned counsel, learned trial

Judge also failed to consider the continuous absence of accused in

causing appearance. Therefore, in the interest of justice, she prays
                                -3-
                                                         ALP-56-2025

to set aside the impugned order by restoring the complaint back on

the file of learned JMFC and leave to appeal to this extent may

kindly be granted.


4.         In answer to above, learned counsel for respondent

pointed out that, complaint was lodged in the year 2017. According

to him, though process was duly issued and the accused had

appeared before the Court, the complainant failed, not merely once

but on several occasions to diligently prosecute the matter. He

further submitted that in view of the prolonged and continuous

absence of the complainant, the learned Trial Judge was justified in

dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution, which is

permissible under law. Consequently, it is prayed that, the leave

application be rejected.


5.         After hearing the submissions so advanced and on

going through the papers, it seems that, present applicant had

instituted proceedings bearing S.C.C No. 168 of 2017 on

21.07.2017. Copy of roznama shows that matter was adjourned

from time to time and both parties were absent on several

occasions. NBWs were issued to accused. Since long time,

complainant and his advocate were absent and matter was pending

for steps. Finally by order dated 01.08.2024 impugned order has

been passed.
                                      -4-
                                                               ALP-56-2025




6.             Considering    the   above,    complaint   is   apparently

dismissed only for want of prosecution. The material on record

indicates that the absence was sought to be explained on medical

grounds and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, to secure

the ends of justice and in view of oral undertaking of learned

counsel to henceforth diligently prosecute the matter before the

trial court, the application for leave to appeal deserves to be

granted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :-

                                    ORDER

          (i) Application stands allowed.

          (ii) Leave is granted to file Appeal.

          (iii) Registry to register the Appeal.

          (iv) List the appeal for further consideration on 19.01.2026


                                            (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)




Tandale