Bombay High Court

OMPRAKASH CHUNILAL KALDAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioner's inactivity.

Summary

The petitioner, OmpraKash Chunilal Kalda, filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 486 of 2023 against the State of Maharashtra and others. After filing, the petitioner failed to take any further steps, did not circulate the petition, and did not instruct his counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to take instructions, but the court observed that the petitioner showed no interest in prosecuting the matter diligently. Consequently, the court held that the petition could not be entertained further. The petition was therefore dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate consequence when a petitioner fails to pursue a criminal writ petition diligently?

Subjects

criminal writ petition
non‑prosecution
dismissal
procedural default
court discretion

Judgment

                                    (1)
                                                    920 Cri.WP-486.2023.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

      920 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 486 OF 2023

               OMPRAKASH CHUNILAL KALDA
                        VERSUS
         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mr. Saad H. Shaikh, Advocate holding for Mr. Shaikh Mazhar
             A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                            VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                    DATED      : 16th September, 2026

Per Court :

.     Though the learned counsel holding for Mr. Shaikh

Mazhar A. Jahagirdar seeks time to take instructions, but the

record shows that after filing this petition, the petitioner did

not care to take circulation till date. Further, he even failed to

instruct his own advocate. Thus, it appears that the petitioner

is not interested in prosecuting the matter diligently, and

therefore, the petition stands dismissed for non prosecution.



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




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…