Bombay High Court

RAJKARAN BHANAJI MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner failed to comply with the Court's direction to provide necessary copies for issuing notices to respondents 2 and 3 since 2022, and also did not give instructions to his own counsel. The petitioner was absent from the hearing and appeared uninterested in prosecuting the matter diligently. The Court noted these procedural lapses and the lack of participation by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the criminal writ petition for non‑prosecution. The dismissal was ordered by a two‑judge bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad bench.

Issues considered

Whether the criminal writ petition should be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with procedural directions.

Subjects

non‑prosecution
procedural default
criminal writ petition
petition dismissed
court direction compliance

Judgment

                                   (1)
                                                918- Cri. W. P. 158-2021.odt



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

          918 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 158 OF 2021

                    RAJKARAN BHANAJI MORE
                           VERSUS
            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                                   …..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Adv. Pratiksha A.Borse h/f
                              Mr. Balbhim R. Kedar
APP for Respondents: Mr. N. B. Patil
Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 : Mr. G.R. Syed
                                ..


                    CORAM :      SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, &
                                 VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.J.

                    DATED :      SEPTEMBER 03, 2026

ORDER:-

1.    Though the learned counsel holding for Mr. B.R. Kedar seeks

time to take instructions, but record shows that the petitioner did not

follow the direction given by this Court, by providing necessary copies

for issuance of notice to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, since 2022. Further

it appears that, the petitioner has also failed to give any instruction to

his own Advocate.



2.    Under such circumstances, it appears that the petitioner is not

interested in prosecuting the matter diligently. Today also the

petitioner is not present.
                                   (2)
                                               918- Cri. W. P. 158-2021.odt
3.     As such, petition stands dismissed for non prosecution.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)             (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                                 JUDGE

YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…