Bombay High Court

MOHAMMED RAFIQ S/O. ABDUL SHUKURversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioner's lack of diligence.

Summary

Petitioner Mohammed Rafiq filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction to respondent No.6 to register an offence for alleged black marketing of food grains and to hand over the investigation to a Special Task Force. The respondents filed an affidavit stating that the Tahsildar had already constituted enquiry teams, issued notices to shop owners, and that the State Government had directed the District Supply Officer to investigate and file a report. The court noted that the enquiry should have been completed and a report filed, and observed that the petitioner had not pursued the matter diligently since 2020. The court found the petitioner uninterested in prosecuting the case and dismissed the petition for non‑prosecution. The petition was dismissed without any order to register an offence or transfer the investigation.

Issues considered

What relief, if any, should be granted to the petitioner regarding registration of an offence for black marketing of food grains and transfer of investigation to a Special Task Force?

Subjects

black marketing
food grains
criminal writ petition
non‑prosecution
diligence
special task force
investigation transfer

Judgment

                                (1)
                                              911 Cri.WP-1918.2019.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
     911 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1918 OF 2019

           MOHAMMED RAFIQ S/O ABDUL SHUKUR
                            VERSUS
        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                 …
     Mr. F.F. Shirpurkar, Advocate holding for Mr. S.S. Kazi,
                   Advocate for the petitioner.
     Mrs. U.S. Bhosale, A.P.P. for respondent Nos.1, 4 and 6.
                                 ...

                  CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                          VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                  DATED : 29 AUGUST 2026.

Per Court :

1.    Learned Advocate holding for Advocate Mr.Kazi for
petitioner seeks time to take instructions.

2.    By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed
for direction to respondent no.6 to register an offence regarding
black marketing of food grains and the investigation be handed
over to Special Task Force or S.I.T.

3.    The affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent no.5, wherein
it is stated that after filing of the present petition, the then
Tahsildar, Nanded had appointed three enquiry teams under
the head of Naib Tahsildars to inquire into the complaints
dated 02.02.2019, 04.02.2019 and 06.03.2019 filed by the
present petitioner. The said teams initiated the enquiry and
issued notices to the fair shop owners and talathis. The
Tahsildar, Naib Tahsildar and Talathis issued separate notices
to the shop owners for separate enquiry regarding the route
nominees. The concerned shop owners filed their common
reply and explanation to the said notices. The said enquiry was
                                           (2)
                                                        911 Cri.WP-1918.2019.odt
            in progress at the time of filing of the affidavit-in-reply.
            Affidavit-in-reply also states that the State Government vide
            it's letter dated 11.03.2020 directed respondent no.5 - District
            Supply Officer to investigate the matter in detail and file report
            immediately.

            4.   By this time, the enquiry must have been concluded and
            the report must have been filed by the District Supply Officer.

            5.   It appears that the petitioner is not diligent in pursuing
            the Writ Petition as the petition is not circulated after the year
            2020. The petition is today on board only due to directions of
            this Court to list the old matters. As the petitioner is not
            diligent in pursuing the petition, it appears that he is not
            interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the petition
            stands dismissed for non-prosecution.



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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…