Bombay High Court

FAKIRCHAND BHANUDAS JADHAV AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court allowed the restoration of the original criminal proceedings, recalling its earlier orders, as the delay was not intentional.

Summary

The applicants sought restoration of a criminal proceeding that had been dismissed because they failed to amend the application within the time ordered by the court. They explained that they could not obtain a certified copy of the chargesheet until after the amendment deadline, causing an unintentional delay. The State opposed the restoration, arguing that the order was not complied with and the dismissal was proper. The judge examined the reasons and found the delay was not deliberate, and that the court has discretion to permit restoration. Consequently, the application was allowed, the earlier orders were recalled, the original proceeding was restored, costs were imposed, and the amendment was ordered to be filed within two weeks.

Issues considered

Whether the original criminal proceeding can be restored despite the lapse of the amendment deadline.
Whether the court may exercise its discretion to allow restoration when the delay in filing the amendment was not intentional.

Subjects

restoration of proceedings
criminal procedure
amendment order
delay
court discretion
costs

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42823
                                                -1-
                                                                  16-APPLN-3619-2026

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3619 OF 2026
                                  IN APPLN/2329/2025

                      FAKIRCHAND BHANUDAS JADHAV AND OTHERS
                                       VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                              .....
              Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shivaji Namdevrao Dudhate
              APP for Respondent - State : Mr. K. K. Naik
                                              .....
                                           CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                           DATED : 15th SEPTEMBER 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.         Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant and the
              learned APP for the State.


              2.         Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the
              present application is for restoration of the original proceedings,
              which came to be dismissed for non-compliance of the order,
              whereby amendment was to be carried out within stipulated
              period. He submits that, due to some personal difficulty, the
              amendment could not be carried out and that the said failure was
              not deliberate or intentional. He submits that the original
              proceedings be restored to its original position, subject to payment
              of some costs.


              3.         The learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the
              application submitting that the order passed by this Court was not
              complied with and therefore the proceedings were ultimately
              dismissed for non-prosecution. However, he submits that it is
              discretion of the Court to allow the application.
                                     -2-
                                                         16-APPLN-3619-2026




4.          The    averments      made     in   the    application,    more
particularly, the reasons mentioned in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5,
which reads as under : -

            “4.    The applicants submit that, applicants have applied
            for the Certified Copy of the chargesheet before learned
            J.M.F.C. at Jalna on 12/06/2026. The Certified Copy
            received to the applicants on 14/07/2026. Therefore,
            applicants could not carry out amendment within stipulated
            time.

            5.      The applicants submit that, after receiving the
            Certified Copy, the applicants handed over the copy to their
            Advocate, but till then the time for filing of application of
            restoration was expired and therefore delay has been caused
            to file the Restoration Application.”


5.          Perusal of paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 shows that the delay
in filing the application is not intentional and that the order
directing the carrying out of amendment is not being disobeyed
intentionally. Taking into consideration the averments made in
paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the application, I am inclined to allow
the application. Hence, the following order :


                                  ORDER
     (i)    The application stands allowed.


     (ii)   The orders dated 11.06.2026 and 24.06.2026 passed
by this Court stand recalled and the original proceeding bearing
Criminal Application No.2329 of 2025 is restored to its original
position, subject to payment of costs of Rs.3,500/- to be paid by the
learned Advocate to the Government Cancer Hospital, Chhatrapati
Sambhajinagar.
                                  -3-
                                                   16-APPLN-3619-2026




          (iii) Amendment to be carried out within a period of two
weeks from today. Amended copy of application along with
annexures be filed in hard copy in the Registry of this Court and
soft copy of entire set be uploaded in the Court proceedings.



                                        (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                               JUDGE




Tandale

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…