Bombay High Court

LOKVIKAS NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD., AURANGABAD THR ASST. GEN. MANAGER TANAJI MOHANRAO SURYAWANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

Lokvikas Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. filed a criminal writ petition seeking registration of an offence against respondents 4 and 5 based on complaints made in 2020. The Court observed that the petitioner had been absent for five and a half years and had not given any instructions to counsel. The lack of participation indicated that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the matter. Consequently, the Court held that the petition could not proceed. The petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Issues considered

Whether a criminal writ petition may be dismissed for want of prosecution when the petitioner remains absent and provides no instructions
Whether the Court can deem the petitioner uninterested in prosecuting the offence

Subjects

criminal writ petition
want of prosecution
registration of offence
court procedure
abandonment

Judgment

                                  (1)
                                              928- Cri. W. P. 450-2020.odt
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 450 OF 2020

LOKVIKAS NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD., AURANGABAD THR ASST.
        GEN. MANAGER TANAJI MOHANRAO SURYAWANSHI
                                VERSUS
           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                   …..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. D.M. Yadav h/f
                              Mr. Kamlakar J. Suryawanshi
APP for Respondents: Mrs. Uma S. Bhosale
                                  ...

                  CORAM :      SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, &
                               VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.J.
                  DATED :      August 21, 2026

ORDER:-

1.     Though the learned counsel holding for Mr K. J. Suryawanshi,

for the petitioner seeks time to take instructions, but the petition

appears to be filed for registration of offence against respondent Nos.

4 and 5 as per the complaints of the petitioner in the year 2020.

However, the report of Resource Personnel of this Court as well as the

record indicates that since last five and half years the petitioner

remained absent. He did not give any instructions to his own counsel.

Under such circumstances, it appears that the petitioner is not

interested in prosecuting the matter. Accordingly, the petition stands

dismissed for want of prosecution.



(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV)              (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                                  JUDGE
YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…