Bombay High Court
ARVIND D. DESAI AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- R N LADDHA
Holding
The revision application is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Summary
The revision application filed by Arvind D. Desai and BS Pushkar challenged a Metropolitan Magistrate's order accepting a ‘C’ summary report and directing further investigation. The original complainant, Suhas S. Kinjavdekar, had earlier obtained a partial relief from the Additional Sessions Judge directing the magistrate to obtain additional material evidence. The revision, pending since 2015, was heard in 2026 with no interim relief granted. Counsel for the applicants were unable to present arguments. The Court dismissed the revision application on the ground of non-prosecution due to the inordinate delay.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate disposition of a criminal revision application that has remained pending for an extended period without any interim relief?
Subjects
- criminal revision
- non-prosecution
- delay
- magistrate order
- summary report
- investigation
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
CHITRA
CHITRA SANJAY
SANJAY SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2026.01.13
15:11:25
+0530
Chitra Sonawane 2-REVN-71-2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Revision Application No.71 of 2015
1. Arvind D Desai
Age: Adult, Occ: Business
Having address at :
42, Heena Smriti, NS Road,
JVPD scheme, Vallabha Nagar
Society, Mumbai-400 049.
2. BS Pushkar
Age: Adult, Occ: Architect,
Having his office at :
M/s Pushkar Consultants,
1st floor, Aditya Kutir,
4th Road, Khar West, Mumbai-52 … Applicants.
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Suhas S Kinjavdekar
Age: Adult, Occ: Authorised
representative of Jeewan CHS Ltd
Plot No.7, Janki Kutir, Juhu,
Mumbai-49. … Respondents.
---
Mr Hrishikesh A Joshi i/by Maniar Srivastava Assoc. for the
applicant.
Ms Sangeeta D Shinde, APP for the respondent / State.
Ms Saili Dhuru i/by Ms Vrishali R Raje for respondent
No.2.
Page No. 1 of 3
____________________________________________
13 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane 2-REVN-71-2015.doc
Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.
Date : 13 January 2026.
P.C. :
The present Criminal Revision Application has
remained pending adjudication since the year 2015. It
appears from the record that Respondent No.2, who is the
original complainant, had initially assailed the legality,
propriety and correctness of order passed by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai,
whereby accepting the ‘C’ Summary Report submitted by
the Investigating Officer upon completion of the
investigation. Aggrieved by the said order, Respondent No.2
preferred Criminal Revision Application No.958 of 2013
before the learned Sessions Court. By a reasoned order
dated 5 May 2014, the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Mumbai, partly allowed the Revision Application and issued
directions to the learned Magistrate to call upon the
Investigating Officer to carry out further investigation,
specifically to collect material evidence regarding the
decision taken by the competent authority in compliance
with the directions issued in Writ Petition No.453 of 2010,
and thereafter to pass appropriate orders in accordance with
the law.
Page No. 2 of 3
____________________________________________
13 January 2026
Chitra Sonawane 2-REVN-71-2015.doc
2. Today, when the matter is called out for hearing, the
learned Counsel appearing in the matter is not in a position
to advance arguments. It is pertinent to note that the
present Revision Application has been pending for a
considerable period since the year 2015, and no interim
relief has been granted therein till date.
3. In view of the above, the present revision Application
stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
[R. N. Laddha, J.]
Page No. 3 of 3
____________________________________________
13 January 2026
Checking your session…