Bombay High Court

ANIL S/O. GANJIDHAR PAWARversusMADHAV VINAYAK KULKARNI AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: Y G KHOBRAGADE

Holding

The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Anil, filed a criminal writ petition in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad bench, seeking relief against respondents including Madhav Vinayak Kulkarni. The petitioner failed to appear in court on multiple dates (22-11-2018, 03-12-2025, and 10-12-2025) despite orders directing personal service and reminders. The court noted that the petitioner was served by email and post but remained absent, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the case. Consequently, the court held that there was no basis to continue the proceedings. The petition was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate consequence when a petitioner repeatedly fails to appear despite personal service and court orders?

Subjects

writ petition
criminal procedure
want of prosecution
non-appearance
dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:372


                                                                    902-Cri-WP-1552-2018.odt




                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          902 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1552 OF 2018

                                      ANIL S/O. GANJIDHAR PAWAR
                                                 VERSUS
                              MADHAV VINAYAK KULKARNI AND OTHERS
                                                    .…
                   Mr. K. S. Patil, APP for Respondent No.8 – State
                                                    .…

                                      CORAM : Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.

                                         DATE : January 08, 2026
                   PER COURT :-

                   1.          The party-in-person is absent. On 22.11.2018 and also

                   on 03.12.2025, the party-in-person was absent.             Lastly, on

                   10.12.2025, this Court passed the following order:-

                         “1. Vide order dated 3rd December 2025, it was directed
                         to the office to intimate the party in person.
                         2.    It appears that the office has not intimated to the
                         concerned party in person. Hence, by way of last chance,
                         put up after vacation.
                         3.    Registry is again directed to intimate the party in
                         person.”

                   2.          As per the office note dated 07.01.2026, the party-in-

                   person is served by e-mail and post. Despite this fact, the party in

                   person remained absent. Therefore, it shows that the petitioner


                                                                                      1 of 2
                                   (( 2 ))         902-Cri-WP-1552-2018




has no interest in prosecuting the matter. Therefore, no option is left

with this Court except to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution.


3.          Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for want of

prosecution.



                                      [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ]

SMS




                                                                          2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…