Bombay High Court
SHRINIWAS NANABHAU NAGARGOJE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
Holding
If the Registry verifies that the amendment has been effected as directed, the matter shall be restored and heard on its merits.
Summary
The applicants, Shriniwas Nanabhau Nagargoje and others, filed a criminal application seeking restoration of the original proceedings after they had been directed to amend their pleadings within a specified time. Although the amendment was eventually made, it was done beyond the time limit set by the Court, leading the office to dismiss the matter for non‑prosecution. The applicants' counsel argued that the Court should have extended the time and that the amendment, albeit late, should be accepted. The Court directed verification of the amendment by the Registry and, if confirmed, ordered the restoration of the proceedings for merits hearing. The application was disposed subject to that verification, and the counsel was instructed to circulate the matter thereafter.
Issues considered
- Whether the Court can extend the time for amendment of pleadings in a criminal proceeding.
- Whether a belated amendment, if verified, warrants restoration of the original proceedings.
- Whether dismissal for non‑prosecution is appropriate when amendment is made after the prescribed deadline.
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Amendment of pleadings
- Restoration of proceedings
- Time extension
- Non‑prosecution
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45896
18nob3936-26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3936 OF 2026
IN
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1488 OF 2025
Shriniwas Nanabhau Nagargoje And others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
…
Mr. Fulchand R. Tandale, Advocate for the Applicants
Mr. D. J. Patil, APP for the State
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
Dated : 28th September, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Not on Board. Taken on Board.
2. Heard learned Advocate for the applicants.
3. The present application is filed for restoration of the original
proceedings, wherein the applicants were directed to carry out
amendment within a specified time. Though the amendment has been
carried out out, according to the learned Advocate, the office objects
by stating that the amendment is carried out beyond the prescribed
time granted by this Court and dismissed the matter for non
prosecution.
4. The learned Advocate submits that the time granted by this
court should have been extended. However, taking into consideration
the statement made by the learned Advocate for he applicants that the
1 of 2
18nob3936-26
amendment is now carried out, though belatedly, the said statement be
verified by the Registry, whether the amendment has been carried out
as directed. If the amendment is carried out successfully, then the
matter be restored, to be heard on merits.
5. After the said process is complete, the learned Advocate is at
liberty to mention the matter for circulation.
6. The Criminal application stands disposed of in the above
terms.
(HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.)
JPChavan
2 of 2
Checking your session…