Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SANGITA W/O. GAMBHIR GAIKWADversusDIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AURAGABAD REGION AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Sangita, filed a criminal writ petition seeking a court direction that her complaint be decided within a stipulated period and that an offence be registered against certain persons. The Resource Personnel report revealed that since March 2020 the petitioner had neither pursued the matter nor addressed the objections raised by the office. The court observed that the petitioner was not actively prosecuting the case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed on the ground of non‑prosecution. No direction to the investigating agency was issued.

Issues considered

  • Whether the court can compel the investigating agency to decide a complaint and register an offence when the petitioner has not actively pursued the matter.

Subjects

  • criminal writ petition
  • non‑prosecution
  • dismissal
  • investigating agency
  • procedural default

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39827-DB


                                            1                 917 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 338 OF 2020



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                    917 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 338 OF 2020
                          SANGITA W/O. GAMBHIR GAIKWAD
                                           VERSUS
                 DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER AURAGABAD REGION AND
                                          OTHERS
                                             …..
            None for the petitioner.
            Adv. N. B. Patil, APP for Respondents-State
                                             …..

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

                                        DATED : 27/08/2026
            Per Court:

            .          None for the petitioner.


            2.         The petitioner is seeking a direction to decide his complaint

            within a stipulated period and to register an offence against the

            concerned persons. However, the report of Resource Personnel

            indicates that, since march 2020, the petitioner has not circulated

            this matter and even not removed the office objections also.


            3.         Thus, it appears that the petitioner is not interested in

            prosecuting the matter diligently and therefore, the petition stands

            dismissed for non-prosecution.



            ( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )
            shivani/


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.