Bombay High Court
RAJU SHIVAJI BHOSALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petitions are dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioner's and counsel's failure to appear.
Summary
The petitioner, Raju Shivaji Bhosale, filed two criminal writ petitions (Nos. 584 of 2024 and 3655 of 2025) challenging actions of the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner and his advocate failed to appear on the returnable dates, despite being cautioned that the petitions would be dismissed for default. Respondents, represented by the State's counsel S.S. Chaudhari and Advocate Ahilya T. Nalawade, argued that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding the court and sought dismissal. The Court, after noting the repeated non‑appearance and the respondents' submissions, exercised its discretion to dismiss the petitions for non‑prosecution. Consequently, both writ petitions were dismissed.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence of a petitioner's failure to appear on the returnable date in a criminal writ petition?
Subjects
- writ petition
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
- default dismissal
- non‑appearance
- procedural default
- court discretion
Judgment
1/3
1- WP-584-2024 (CR).DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 584 OF 2024
Raju Shivaji Bhosale …...Petitioner
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra And Anr. …...Respondents
WITH
CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3655 OF 2025
Raju Shivaji Bhosale …........Petitioner
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra And Anr. ….......Respondents
_________________________________________________________________
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, APP, for Respondent No.1 - State.
Ms. Ahilya T. Nalawade and Ms. Shruddha Patil, for Respondent No.2.
SHANTANU
SHANKARSA
DHUDUM _________________________________________________________________
Digitally signed by
SHANTANU
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
Date: 2026.09.22
20:19:18 +0530
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.
1. None present for the Petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned APP for Respondent No.1 –
State and Ms. Ahilya T. Nalawade, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2.
3. On 16th September 2026, the following order was passed:
Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/3
1- WP-584-2024 (CR).DOC
“1. On 04.09.2026, the Petitioner / Advocate for the Petitioner
were cautioned that on the returnable date, this Petition
would be dismissed for default and as such, this Petition is
listed today under the caption “For Dismissal”.
2. Today, when this Petition was called out, neither the
Petitioner nor the Advocate for the Petitioner are present in
Court either physically or through VC mode.
3. Ms. Ahilya Nalawade, learned Advocate for the Respondent
No. 2, states that the Petitioner is avoiding to appear before
this Court, however, is seeking adjournment before the Trial
Court on the ground of pendency of this Petition. She
therefore request for dismissal of this Petition for non-
appearance of the Petitioner / Advocate for the Petitioner.
4. As a matter of indulgence and as a last and final
opportunity to the Petitioner / Advocate for the Petitioner to
appear and argue the case, list this Petition on 22.09.2026,
under the caption “For Disposal”.”
4. Today, when these Petitions were called out, the name of the
Petitioner (Raju Shivaji Bhosale) and the Advocate-on-Record (Aniket
Vagal) were called out by the Court Sheristedar. None present, either
physically or through V.C. mode.
5. Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State
and Ms. Ahilya T. Nalawade, learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, by
referring to the order dated 16 th September, 2026, submit that the
Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/3
1- WP-584-2024 (CR).DOC
Petitioner/Advocate for the Petitioner have deliberately remained absent
on 16th September, 2026, as also on the earlier date fixed in this
Application. They submit that the absence of the Petitioner/Advocate for
the Petitioner is a clear indication that they are not interested in pursuing
these Petitions. They, therefore, insist upon dismissal of these Petitions.
6. In view of the absence of the Petitioner/Advocate for the
Petitioner and taking note of the submissions made by Mr. S. S. Chaudhari,
learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 – State and Ms. Ahilya T. Nalawade,
learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, this Court is left with no alternative
but to dismiss these Writ Petitions for non-prosecution.
7. Criminal Writ Petition No.584 of 2024 and Criminal Writ
Petition No.3655 of 2025 are dismissed.
( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Shantanu S. Dhudum
Checking your session…