Bombay High Court

ARUN SHAMRAV MHASKE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioners filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction from the High Court to register an FIR based on a complaint dated 20 September 2021. The petitioners failed to address objections raised by the office and did not provide necessary instructions to their counsel, showing negligence in prosecuting the matter. The respondent State, through counsel, highlighted that the petitioners had an alternative remedy for FIR registration. The Court observed that the petitioners were most negligent and had not taken steps to advance their case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition on the ground of non‑prosecution, ordering the petition to stand dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for registration of an FIR under a criminal writ petition.
Whether the petitioner's negligence and failure to prosecute the petition justify dismissal for non‑prosecution.

Subjects

criminal procedure
FIR registration
writ petition
non‑prosecution
negligence

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42343-DB

                                                                             1176.2021WP

                                                   1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          15 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1176 OF 2021

                                ARUN SHAMRAV MHASKE AND OTHERS
                                                   VERSUS
                              THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                     ...
                 Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Vikram L. Bhange h/f Mr.Jadhav Kiran D
                 APP for Respondent/State : Mrs. U.S. Bhosale
                                              ...
                                        CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                  VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.
                                        DATE  : 15.09.2026

                 P.C. :
                 .           Though learned counsel holding for Mr.Jadhav,
                 learned counsel for petitioners seeks an adjournment but
                 report of the Resource Personnel clearly indicates that after
                 filing of this petition, the petitioners never cared to remove
                 the office objections. They did not even give the necessary
                 instructions to their own Advocate.
                 2.          Learned A.P.P. submits that the petitioners are
                 seeking directions for registration of F.I.R. in view of their
                 complaint dated 20.09.2021, however, for that purpose, they
                 are having alternate remedy also.
                 3.          Since, the petitioners are found most negligent in
                 prosecuting the matter, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the
                 petition for non-prosecution. Accordingly, the petition stands
                 dismissed for non-prosecution.




                 [VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]                [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
                         JUDGE                               JUDGE
                 sga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…