Bombay High Court
XYZversusSANJEEV DHUMAL AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court restored Criminal Writ Petition No. 702 of 2026 to its original file, finding the counsel’s absence to be a genuine difficulty.
Summary
The applicant filed an interim application seeking restoration of Criminal Writ Petition No. 702 of 2026, which had been dismissed for non‑prosecution because no one appeared on the scheduled dates of 21 April and 18 June 2026. The applicant’s counsel explained that on 21 April she was required to appear before the District Police Complaints Authority, and on 18 June she was unable to attend court due to a personal injury and could not connect via video‑conferencing. The court accepted that the counsel’s absence was inadvertent and not intentional, constituting a genuine difficulty. Accordingly, the court restored the writ petition to its original file and allowed the counsel to proceed with the petition. The application for restoration was then disposed of.
Issues considered
- What constitutes sufficient cause to condone non‑appearance and restore a criminal writ petition dismissed for non‑prosecution?
Subjects
- restoration of writ
- non‑prosecution
- procedural default
- criminal writ petition
- counsel injury
- video conferencing
- District Police Complaints Authority
Judgment
8-IA-3278-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3278 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.702 OF 2026
XYZ ... Applicant
Vs.
Sanjeev Dhumal And Ors ... Respondents
SHARADA
RANGNATH
WAHULE
Digitally signed by
****
SHARADA
RANGNATH WAHULE
Date: 2026.09.24
11:12:16 +0530
Ms. Snigdha Khandelwal i/b Abrar Burondkar, Advocate for the
Applicant.
Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for Respondent-State.
****
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL AND
RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, JJ.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C.:
1. This is an application for restoration of Criminal Writ Petition No.
702 of 2026, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated
18th June 2026.
2. Heard by Ms. Khandelwal, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
and Ms. Kak, learned APP for the Respondent-State.
3. It was observed in the order dated 18 th June 2026 that nobody
appeared for the Petitioner on 21 st April 2026 as well as on 18 th June
2026.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted, and it is also
1
Sharada
8-IA-3278-2026.doc
mentioned in the application, that on 21 st April 2026, the learned
Advocate for the Applicant was required to appear before the District
Police Complaints Authority in respect of the subject matter. On 18 th
June 2026, the learned Advocate could not attend the Court due to an
injury.
5. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the absence of
the Advocate was inadvertent and not intentional, and that she could
not connect through the Video Conferencing platform.
6. Considering the genuine difficulty faced by the learned Advocate,
the Criminal Writ Petition No. 702 of 2026 is restored to its original file.
The learned counsel for the Applicant is at liberty to circulate the Writ
Petition. The application is accordingly disposed of.
( RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
2
Sharada
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.