Bombay High Court
SANJAY GAJANAN RAKHUNDEversusDHANANJAY HAMBIR RAKHUNDE AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the order dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution is set aside and the case is restored to the magistrate’s file.
Summary
The appellant, Sanjay Gajanan Rakhunde, filed a criminal complaint alleging offences under Sections 420, 427, 465, 468 and 416 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indapur dismissed the complaint on 3 June 2017 for want of prosecution. The appellant appealed, contending that he had diligently pursued the case for more than five years and that restoring the case would not prejudice the respondents. The respondents argued that the complaint had remained pending for an inordinate period without any evidence being led, justifying the dismissal. The High Court observed some negligence on the part of the appellant but emphasized the seriousness of the alleged offences and the interest of justice. Consequently, the Court set aside the magistrate's order, restored the criminal case (R.C.C. No.46 of 2011) to the magistrate’s file, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate judicial response when a criminal complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution?
- Should the dismissal be set aside and the case restored in view of the seriousness of the alleged offences?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 416, 420, 427, 465, 468
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- want of prosecution
- restoration of case
- IPC offences
- appeal
- negligence
- interest of justice
Judgment
1 41-APEAL 1235-25.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1235 OF 2025
Sanjay Gajanan Rakhunde … Appellant
Vs.
Dhananjay Hambir Rakhunde & Anr. … Respondents
-----
Ms. Neha M. Zanje i/by Rahul S. Kate for the Appellant.
Mr. Rupesh Zade for Respondent No.1.
Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for Respondent No.2-State.
-----
CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE : 01ST SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 03 rd June 2017
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indapur.
2. By the impugned order, the Learned Magistrate has dismissed the
complaint case filed by the present Appellant for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 427, 465, 468 and 416 of the Indian Penal Code for
want of prosecution.
3. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned
Counsel for contesting Respondent No.1.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was
diligently prosecuting the complaint case in question for more than five
years. It is submitted that no prejudice is going to be caused to the
Mugdha 1 of 2
2 41-APEAL 1235-25.doc
contesting Respondent No.1 if the complaint case is restored to file.
5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent
No.1 submits that the complaint was pending for long time for recording
evidence before charge. It is submitted that in spite of multiple
opportunities no evidence was led and thus ultimately matter was
dismissed. It is submitted that thus no interference is called for in the
impugned order.
6. I have perused the roznama. Though there appears to be some
negligence on the part of the appellant to prosecute the matter, however, it
appears that process was issued for serious offences and thus in the
interest of justice, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order. Hence,
the following order:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned order is set aside.
iii. R.C.C. No.46 of 2011 is restored on the file of Learned
Magistrate.
7. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.)
Mugdha 2 of 2
Checking your session…