Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

M.A.QUADEER SIDDIQUI ABDUL SAMID SIDDIQUI LRS MAHEMODA SULTANA AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The contempt petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioners, M.A. Quadeer Siddiqui and others, filed a contempt petition (Contempt Petition No. 321 of 2013) against the State of Maharashtra. After filing, the petitioners failed to appear before the court and did not take any further steps, including no circulation of the petition after 27 August 2013. The court observed that the petitioners showed no interest in prosecuting the matter. Consequently, the judges held that the petition could not proceed in the absence of prosecution by the petitioners. The contempt petition was therefore dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Issues considered

  • Whether a contempt petition may be dismissed on account of the petitioners' failure to prosecute the case?

Subjects

  • contempt
  • non‑prosecution
  • petition dismissed
  • high court
  • procedural default

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39026

                                                                910 CONT. PETITION NO. 321 OF 2013




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                910 CONT. PETITION NO. 321 OF 2013
                                         IN WP/1630/1994

                       M.A. Quadeer Siddiqui S/o. Abdul Samid Siddiqui LRs
                       Mahemoda Sultana W/o. Abdul Quadeer Siddiqui And
                                                 Others
                                                 Versus
                                The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                     __________________________________________________________
                     Adv. R. B. Salve for the Petitioners
                     Mr. N. B. Patil, AGP for State
                     __________________________________________________________

                                        CORAM       : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                                      VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                                        DATE        : AUGUST 28, 2026

                     PER COURT :

                     1)              None appears for the petitioners.

                     2)              The record shows that after 27.08.2013, the

                     petitioners have not taken circulation till today. None

                     appeared for the petitioner even today.

                     3)              Therefore, it appears that the petitioners are not

                     interested in prosecuting the matter.

                     4)              Accordingly,   the   Contempt      Petition       stands

                     dismissed for non-prosecution.



                     (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)              (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
                               JUDGE                              JUDGE

                      Komal Kamble                                                  Page 1 of 1


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.