Bombay High Court

SURENDRAKUMAR S/O. PIRAJIBHAI WANKHEDEversusPRASHANT S/O. VIJAY PATIL AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The revision application is infructuous and is disposed of.

Summary

Surendrakumar filed a criminal revision challenging a Sessions Judge's order dated 17 January 2019 that the case be kept for verification of the complainant and witness evidence. The Sessions Judge later dismissed the complaint on 1 October 2021, stating that the advocates for the parties were repeatedly absent. The applicant argued that the dismissal was improper and sought relief. The High Court examined the procedural history and noted that the complaint had already been dismissed, rendering the revision application moot. Consequently, the Court held the revision application to be infructuous and disposed of it without further hearing.

Issues considered

What is the maintainability of a criminal revision when the underlying complaint has already been dismissed?
Does the absence of advocates on several occasions justify dismissal of the complaint and render the revision application infructuous?

Subjects

criminal revision
infructuous application
complaint dismissal
advocate absence
procedural default

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39469


                                                 1/1                    916-REVN-126-2019


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     916 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 126 OF 2019

                            Surendrakumar S-o. Pirajibhai Wankhede
                                             VERSUS
                              Prashant S-o. Vijay Patil And Others
                                                …..
                Mr. Raje Vikrant P., Advocate for Applicant.
                                                …..

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

                PER COURT :

                1.        Heard Mr. Raje, learned counsel for the applicant.

                2.        In this case, the applicant is challenging the order dated 17

                January 2019, whereby the learned Sessions Judge kept the matter

                for verification of the complainant and for evidence of the

                witnesses. Mr. Raje fairly states before this Court that the learned

                Sessions Judge, Amalner, vide order dated 1 October 2021,

                dismissed the complaint, as the learned advocate were remained

                absent on several occasions. In that view of the matter, the instant

                application has become infurctuous. Hence, the matter is disposed

                of as infructuous.




                                                  (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)

                Kiran Kawre

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…