Bombay High Court

SHABANA W/O. HANIF SHAIKH AND ANRversusSHAIKH HANIF SHAIKH CHUNNU

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The court dismissed the application for want of prosecution because the applicant failed to appear.

Summary

The petitioners, Shabana w/o. Hanif Shaikh and another, filed Criminal Application No. 550 of 2020 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The applicant failed to appear before the court on the date fixed by the order dated 14 August 2026. The court, noting the absence of any representation for the applicant, gave the applicant a further opportunity by fixing another date. On the subsequent date, 29 August 2026, the applicant again failed to appear. The court held that continued non‑appearance amounted to a want of prosecution. Consequently, the application was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Issues considered

Whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to the applicant's failure to appear before the court

Subjects

procedural law
want of prosecution
non-appearance
criminal application
dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39467


                                               1/1                   914-APPLN-550-2020


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              914 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 550 OF 2020
                                         IN REVNST-36-2020

                              Shabana W-o. Hanif Shaikh And Anr
                                           VERSUS
                                  Shaikh Hanif Shaikh Chunnu
                                              …..
                None for the parties.
                                              …..

                                           CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.
                                           DATE : 29 AUGUST, 2026

                PER COURT :

                1.        Vide order dated 14 August 2026, this court observed that
                nobody had appeared on behalf of the applicant. Since nobody had
                appeared on behalf of the applicant, in order to give one more
                opportunity, this matter was kept today. It was also observed that if
                none appeared on behalf of the applicant, this Court would be
                constrained to dismiss the matter for want of prosecution.

                2.        Hence, even today, nobody has appeared on behalf of the
                applicant. Hence, the matter is dismissed for want of prosecution.



                                                 (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)




                Kiran Kawre

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…