Bombay High Court
AKSHAYA RAVINDRA KHEDEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is disposed of as not pressed and the cost of Rs. 2,000 imposed by the impugned order is waived.
Summary
Akshaya Ravindra Khedekar filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 3786 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court challenging an order that imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000. During the hearing, the petitioner, through counsel, indicated that he no longer wished to pursue the petition but sought a waiver of the cost on the ground that he had exercised the remedy under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The respondent State of Maharashtra, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not oppose the waiver. The Court, after noting the petition was not pressed, waived the cost and disposed of the petition as not pressed. No substantive merits of the original order were examined.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal writ petition that is not pressed can be disposed of without prejudice.
- Whether the court may waive costs imposed in the impugned order when the petitioner invokes Section 407 of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 407
Subjects
- criminal writ petition
- costs waiver
- Section 407 CrPC
- petition withdrawn
- disposal of petition
Judgment
3-WP-3786-2024 (CR).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3786 OF 2024
Akshaya Ravindra Khedekar ] Petitioner
versus
Digitally The State of Maharashtra and others ] Respondents
signed by
SHAILAJA … ..
SHAILAJA SHRIKANT
SHRIKANT HALKUDE Mr. Rakesh Bhatkar a/w Mr. Vaibhav V. Arage, Advocates for Petitioner.
HALKUDE Date:
2026.09.11
18:41:05
+0530
Mr. P.P. Deokar, A.P.P, for Respondent No.1 – State.
None for Respondent No.2.
…..
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026
PER COURT :
1. After hearing the learned Advocate for the Petitioner for some
time, when this Court expressed its disinclination to interfere with the
impugned order, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, on instructions,
submitted that the Petitioner does not wish to proceed with the Petition.
However, he submitted that the order, to the extent of imposition of costs,
may be waived, as the Petitioner had availed of the remedy available under
Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The learned A.P.P. does not object to waiving the costs as prayed
above.
Shailaja Page 1 of 2
3-WP-3786-2024 (CR).odt
3. In view of the above, the Petition is disposed of as not pressed.
The imposition of cost of Rs. 2,000/- by the impugned order is waived as it
gives no reasons for imposing it.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Shailaja Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…