Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

ABDUL RAZZAK MOHD. IDRIS SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Decided
Disposal
Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

A writ petition was filed on 21 August 2018 by Abdul Razzak Mohd. Idris Shaikh seeking relief against the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner failed to appear for the hearing and did not take any steps to circulate the petition since its filing. The court observed that the petitioner appeared uninterested in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition on the ground of non‑prosecution. The dismissal was recorded by a bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata.

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
  • court procedure

Judgment

                           sns                                                    101-wp-3775-2018.doc

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              WRIT PETITION NO.3775 OF 2018

                      Abdul Razzak Mohd. Idris Shaikh                               … Petitioner

                               V/s.

                      The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                               … Respondents




                      None for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP, for the Respondent-State.


                                                          CORAM :      A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                                       KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
                                                            DATE :     12th June 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.

                      21st August, 2018, 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
         SUMEDH
                                                                                                         1/1
SUMEDH   NAMDEO
NAMDEO   SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
         2026.06.22
         12:46:04
         +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.