Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SHIVAJI NATHA MALIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Shivaji Natha Mali, filed a writ petition on 23 September 2015 in the Bombay High Court. He failed to appear for the hearing and did not take any steps to circulate or pursue the petition thereafter. The court observed that the petitioner appeared uninterested in continuing the proceedings. Consequently, the judges held that the petition could not be kept alive without prosecution. The petition was therefore dismissed for non‑prosecution.

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
  • Bombay High Court

Judgment

                ssm                                                          48-wp3867.2015.doc

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 3867 OF 2015

        Shivaji Natha Mali                                             …..Petitioner

                     Vs.

        The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.                                …..Respondents

                                    ____________________________________

        None for the Petitioner.
        Smt. P.P. Shinde APP, for the Respondent-State.

                                    ____________________________________

                                                   CORAM :      A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                                KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
                                                     DATE :     4th MARCH, 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.

        23rd September, 2015, the Petitioner and/or his Advocate has not taken any

        steps to circulate the Petition, even for 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 SANJIV
SANJIV      SHARNAPPA                                                                             1/1
SHARNAPPA   MASHALKAR
MASHALKAR   Date: 2026.03.09
            12:01:40 +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.