Bombay High Court
ROHIT ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROP SOMESHWAR MAHADEV BHOSALEversusMANGAL BHARAT POKHARKAR AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
M/s Rohit Enterprises, through Someshwar Mahadev Bhosale, filed a writ petition challenging a summoning order dated 23 December 2015 that sought to prosecute them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petition was lodged in August 2024 and was listed before the Bombay High Court on 18 November 2024. The petitioner’s counsel requested a adjournment citing personal difficulties, after which neither the counsel nor the petitioner pursued the matter further. The Court observed that the petitioner showed no desire to prosecute the writ petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition may be dismissed for want of prosecution when the petitioner fails to take steps after an adjournment.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act despite inactivity.
Legislation cited
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Section 138
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- Want of prosecution
- Dismissal
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.09.21
CHITNIS 12:09:46 +0530
13-wp.4074.2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4074 OF 2024
M/s. Rohit enterprises through it’s
Prop. Someshwar Mahadev Bhosale ...Petitioner
Versus
Mangal Bharat Pokharkar and Anr. ...Respondents
None for the Petitioner.
CORAM: ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.
DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER 2026
P.C. :
1. None appears for the petitioner.
2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the summoning order dated 23 rd December 2015, which inter alia
issued process against the petitioner under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act.
Although the petition was filed in August 2024, when it
was listed before this court on 18 th November 2024, the counsel
appearing for the petitioner sought accommodation on the ground that
N. S. Chitnis 1/2
13-wp.4074.2024.doc
the arguing counsel was facing some personal difficulty. Thereafter,
neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the petitioner has taken any
efforts to obtain circulation or seek relief as prayed for in the petition.
From the conduct of the petitioner, it is evident that he is
not desirous of prosecuting the writ petition. Consequently, the writ
petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.
N. S. Chitnis 2/2
Checking your session…