Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

IMRAN AKIL SAYYADversusSAU JASMIN SHABIR SHAIKH

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The criminal revision application was dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The applicant, Imran Akil Sayyad, filed a criminal revision application before the Bombay High Court. No counsel or party appeared on behalf of the applicant on the scheduled date, nor on the previous date. The respondent, represented by Mr. S. S. Pednekar, was present. The Court observed the applicant's failure to prosecute the application and consequently dismissed it. The dismissal was based solely on the applicant's non‑appearance and lack of prosecution of the matter.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate consequence when an applicant fails to appear and prosecute a criminal revision application?

Subjects

  • criminal revision
  • non-prosecution
  • procedural default
  • court dismissal

Judgment

                                                                         55-REVN-333-2025 (CR).doc


      Shubhada S Kadam


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 333 OF 2025

                      Imran Akil Sayyad                                       ...Applicant/s
                      Versus
                      Sau Jasmin Shabir Shaikh                                ...Respondent/s

                      _________________________________________________________________

                      None for Applicant.
                      Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.
                      _________________________________________________________________

                                                         CORAM       :   SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
                                                         DATE        :   31st AUGUST, 2026.
                      P.C. :

                      1.         None present for the applicant. On last date also, none was

                      present for the applicant.

                      2.         Dismissed for non-prosecution.

                                                                   (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)




SHUBHADA
SHANKAR
KADAM
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM
Date: 2026.09.01
11:13:48 +0530                                       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.