Bombay High Court

NANASAHEB UTTAMRAO VANVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

Both the condonation of delay application and the revision application were dismissed in default for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Nanasaheb Uttamrao Vanve, filed a criminal application seeking condonation of delay and a revision application before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The respondent, the State of Maharashtra, was represented by Advocate S.G. Sangle. The court noted that the petitioner’s counsel failed to appear on the scheduled date of 14 August 2026, and again on 21 August 2026, indicating a loss of interest in prosecuting the matters. Consequently, the court dismissed both the condonation of delay application and the revision application in default for want of prosecution. No substantive merits of the applications were considered, and the orders were entered solely on procedural grounds.

Issues considered

Can the applications for condonation of delay and revision be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the applicant’s non‑appearance?

Subjects

Criminal Procedure Code
Condonation of Delay
Revision Application
Default Dismissal
Want of Prosecution
Non‑appearance

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38409




                                                 -1-

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            917 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4343 OF 2022
                                      IN REVNST/11980/2022

                                   NANASAHEB UTTAMRAO VANVE
                                             VERSUS
                                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

              Mr.S.G.Sangle, Addl.PP for the Respondent/State.

                                   ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. )

                                      DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2026

              PER COURT :


              1.             This Court, vide order dated 14.08.2026, has observed that

              this Application will be dismissed for non appearance of the learned

              Advocate for the Applicant, on the next date.



              2.             Today also, none appears for the Applicant.    As such, it

              revealed that the Applicant has lost interest in prosecuting the Criminal

              Application as well as the Criminal Revision Application. Hence both

              these Applications for condonation of delay and Revision Application

              stand dismissed in default, for want of prosecution.


                                                     ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)


              khs/Aug.2026/4343

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…