Bombay High Court
SUBHASH TUKARAM TARANGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The revision application is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
Subhash Tukaram Tarange filed a criminal revision (No. 265 of 2022) challenging the Assistant Sessions Judge's order rejecting his discharge application in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2021. The High Court had earlier directed the applicant's counsel to file spare copies and an affidavit of service, which were not filed. No counsel appeared for the applicant on the hearing date. Consequently, the Court found that the applicant was not interested in pursuing the revision. The revision was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.
Issues considered
- Whether a revision application can proceed when the applicant fails to comply with the Court's procedural directions to file spare copies and an affidavit of service.
Subjects
- revision
- discharge application
- procedural default
- want of prosecution
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
SMITA Digitally signed by SMITA
JOHNSON GONSALVES
JOHNSON Date: 2026.08.24
GONSALVES 11:02:52 +0530
sg 17.revn265-22.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Revision Application No.265 of 2022
Subhash Tukaram Tarange … Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra And Ors. … Respondents
----
None for the Applicant.
Ms. Sangeeta Shinde, APP, for the Respondent/ State.
----
Coram: Ashish S. Chavan, J.
Date: 21st August, 2026.
P.C.:
1. None appears for the Applicant when called.
2. The Applicant, by way of this revision, has challenged the
rejection of discharge application filed by him in Sessions Case No.20
of 2021, wherein by an order dated 31st March, 2022, the Assistant
Sessions Judge, Baramati, District Pune, has rejected the application
for discharge.
3. Although this Court had issued notice to the Respondents vide
its order dated 30th June, 2022, Court noting indicates that, since
Page 1 of 2
__________________________________________________
21st August, 2026
sg 17.revn265-22.docx
then, the Advocate for the Applicant has neither supplied spare copies
nor filed affidavit of service in terms of the order of this Court.
Evidently, neither the Applicant nor his Counsel is desirous of
pursuing the revision application.
4. In view thereof, Revision Application No.265 of 2022 is
dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Ashish S. Chavan, J.)
Page 2 of 2
__________________________________________________
21st August, 2026
Checking your session…