Bombay High Court

RAMKISHAN S/O. JALBA SHILEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioner’s gross negligence and lack of interest.

Summary

Ramkishan filed a criminal writ petition in 2020 seeking the court’s direction to initiate criminal proceedings and a departmental enquiry against respondents 6 to 9, and to order the Superintendent of Police, Nanded, to prosecute them. The petition remained pending for several years. The petitioner’s counsel informed the court that the petitioner was unavailable and had not taken any steps to advance the case since 2021. The court observed that the petitioner had shown gross negligence and a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition for non‑prosecution. The dismissal was based on the petitioner’s failure to pursue the remedy rather than any substantive question of law.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate judicial response when a petitioner fails to pursue a criminal writ petition and shows gross negligence?
Can the High Court direct the police to initiate criminal proceedings in the absence of an active petitioner?

Subjects

criminal writ petition
non‑prosecution
gross negligence
direction to police
departmental enquiry
High Court of Bombay
dismissal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39804-DB

                                                                      355.20WP

                                              1

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          20 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.355 OF 2020

                            RAMKISHAN S/O. JALBA SHILEKAR
                                           VERSUS
                        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
                                               ...
                       Advocate for the petitioner : Mr.Gautam V. Salve
                                       h/f.Mr.R.M.Jade
                         APP for Respondent-State : Mr.S.J.Salgare
                    Advocate for Respondent nos. 6 and 7 : Mr.Y.K.Bobade
                    Advocate for Respondent nos.8 and 9 : Mr.V.B.Kulkarni
                                               …

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

                                     DATE     :   31.08.2026


                 P.C. :


                              Heard. Though Mr.Gautam V. Salve, learned

                 counsel holding for Mr.R.M.Jade, learned counsel for the

                 petitioner submits that Mr.Jade is not available today, but

                 the Petition appears to be pending from the year 2020

                 wherein direction is sought to take legal action or initiate

                 departmental enquiry against the respondent nos.6 to 9.

                 Further direction to the Superintendent of Police, Nanded is

                 also sought for initiating criminal proceedings against the

                 respondent nos.6 to 9 pursuant to the representations of the
                                                       355.20WP

                              2

petitioner. However, it appears that after 2021 the petitioner

has not taken care to circulate the matter and today also the

petitioner is not present before this Court. At present, the

petitioner has not even taken care to give instructions to his

own Advocate. Therefore, considering the gross negligence of

the petitioner, it appears that he is not interested in

prosecuting the matter diligently. Accordingly, the Writ

Petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.




[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]           [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
        JUDGE                          JUDGE

DDC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…