Bombay High Court

SANJAY MAHADEVAPPA NILA AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The Court allowed the recall of the dismissal order and restored the original criminal writ petition to the file.

Summary

The applicants, Sanjay Mahadevappa Nila and another, failed to serve the second respondent within the prescribed time, leading to a dismissal of the original criminal writ petition for non‑prosecution on 22 January 2026. They filed an application seeking recall of that dismissal, explaining the lapse as an inadvertent mistake, offering an unconditional apology, and assuring removal of the office objections within two weeks. The Court, after considering the explanation and the applicants' assurance, allowed the application, recalled the dismissal order, and restored the original proceedings to the file. The Court also directed the applicants' counsel to remove the office objections within the stipulated period. The application was thereafter disposed of.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy when a criminal proceeding is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to a failure to serve a respondent within the prescribed time?
Can a dismissal order be recalled on the basis of an inadvertent procedural mistake and an apology from the counsel?

Subjects

criminal procedure
non‑prosecution
recall of order
procedural lapse
apology
restoration of proceedings

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41718
                                                -1-
                                                               921-APPLN-902-2026

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 902 OF 2026
                                   IN WP/919/2025

                       SANJAY MAHADEVAPPA NILA AND ANOTHER
                                       VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                              .....
              Advocate for Applicants : Mr. S. S. Jangada h/f. Mr. N. P. Patil
              Jamalpurkar
              APP for Respondent - State : Mr. V. K. Kotecha
                                              .....
                                         CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
                                         DATED : 9th SEPTEMBER 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.         Heard.


              2.         Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that the

              the present application is preferred for recalling the order of

              dismissing the original proceedings for non-prosecution as the

              applicants failed to take steps to serve the respondent no.2 within

              the prescribed time. The learned Advocate for the applicants

              submits that it was an inadvertent mistake and he tenders

              unconditional apology with an assurance to the Court that the

              steps and necessary office objections will be removed within a

              period of two weeks from today.


              3.         Taking into consideration the explanation tendered in

              the application and also the assurance and apology tendered by the
                                      -2-
                                                        921-APPLN-902-2026

learned Advocate for the applicants across the bar, I am inclined to

allow the application. Hence, the following order :

                                   ORDER

          (i)     The application stands allowed in terms of prayer
                  Clause (B), (C) and (D).


          (ii)    The order dated 22.01.2026 stands recalled.


          (iii)   The original proceedings bearing Criminal Writ
                  Petition No.919 of 2025 stands restored to its original
                  file.


          (iv)    Learned Advocate for the applicants is directed to
                  remove the office objections within a period of two
                  weeks from today.


          (v)     The application stands disposed of.


                                             (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
                                                    JUDGE




Tandale

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…