Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SURAJ ARKIT RAWALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Suraj Arkit Rawal, filed a writ petition on 14 January 2020 in the Bombay High Court. No appearance was made by the petitioner or his counsel for the hearing. The court noted that the petitioner made no effort to circulate the petition since its filing. It was observed that the petitioner appeared uninterested in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition on the ground of non‑prosecution.

Issues considered

  • Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioner’s failure to appear and pursue the case

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • non-prosecution
  • dismissal
  • criminal appellate jurisdiction
  • Bombay High Court

Judgment

                DTG                                                                  89-Wp-322-2020.doc



                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                             CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              WRIT PETITION NO. 322 OF 2020

                Suraj Arkit Rawal                                                  … Petitioner
                               V/s.
                The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                    … Respondents
                                          _______________________________________

                None for Petitioner.

                Mr. Shrikant V. Gavand, A.P.P. for Respondent-State.
                                 _______________________________________

                                                   CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                           KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
                                                   DATE  : 31st July 2026

                P.C. :

                1)                    None for the Petitioner when called out for hearing.

                2)                    Record indicates that, since the date of filing of the Petition i.e.

                14th January 2020, neither the Petitioner nor his Advocate has taken any

                steps to circulate the Petition, even once.

                2.1)                  It appears that, the Petitioner is not interested in pursuing the

                Petition.

                3)                    Dismissed for non-prosecution.




                                      ( KAMAL KHATA, J. )                    ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )

            Digitally signed by
            DNYANESHWAR
DNYANESHWAR TULSHIRAM
TULSHIRAM
GHUMNAR
            GHUMNAR                                                                                       1/1
            Date: 2026.08.06
            19:08:54 +0530


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.