Bombay High Court

JAMIR WAJIR SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioner's gross negligence and failure to comply with procedural requirements.

Summary

Jamir Wajir Shaikh filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 1456 of 2021 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking an adjournment on the ground of the unavailability of Ms. Sunita Sonawane. The petitioner’s counsel alleged that the adjournment was necessary, but the court noted that the petitioner had failed to remove office objections, obtain required circulation, and had not even informed his own advocate. The Resource Personnel report highlighted this persistent non‑compliance, indicating gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. The bench held that such neglect amounted to a failure to prosecute the petition. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for non‑prosecution.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate consequence when a petitioner fails to comply with procedural requirements and exhibits gross negligence in prosecuting a criminal writ petition?

Subjects

criminal writ petition
non‑prosecution
adjournment
procedural default
gross negligence

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42346-DB

                                                                       1456.2021WP

                                                1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        18 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1456 OF 2021

                                   JAMIR WAJIR SHAIKH
                                          VERSUS
                        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                             ...
                 Advocate for Petitioner : Adv. Anita Nisargandh h/f
                 Ms.Sonawane Sunita G
                 APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.J. Salgare
                                             ...
                                    CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                 VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                      DATE     :    15.09.2026

                 P.C. :


                 .           Though learned counsel holding for Ms. Sunita
                 Sonawane, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks an
                 adjournment on the ground of unavailability of Ms.Sunita
                 Sonawane, however, the report of Resource Personnel clearly
                 indicates that after filing this petition, the petitioner never
                 removed office objections nor obtained circulation till today.
                 He even did not care to intimate his own Advocate.
                 2.          Considering the gross negligence of the petitioner,
                 we are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of for
                 non-prosecution. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for
                 non-prosecution.




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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…