Bombay High Court

SHARIF BHAIYA SHAHAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's gross negligence and failure to pursue the claim.

Summary

The petitioner, Sharif Bhaiya Shaha, filed a criminal writ petition seeking Rs.1,50,000 compensation for alleged malicious prosecution by the State of Maharashtra and others. The petitioner later claimed that the petition was filed by forging his signature and that he had not given any instructions to his counsel. The court noted that the petitioner had not communicated with the court or his counsel since April 2022 and that there were no instructions on record. Given the petitioner's gross negligence and lack of prosecution, the court dismissed the petition. The dismissal was based on the petitioner's failure to pursue the matter and the apparent forgery claim, leading to a non-prosecution outcome.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate remedy when a petitioner alleges that a petition was filed by forging his signature?
Whether the petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's gross negligence and lack of instructions.

Subjects

malicious prosecution
forgery
non-prosecution
petition dismissed
court negligence
compensation claim

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42347-DB

                                                                             599.2022WP

                                                   1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        20 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 599 OF 2022

                                   SHARIF BHAIYA SHAHA
                                             VERSUS
                        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                ...
                 Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shaikh Abid R
                 APP for Respondent/State : Mrs. U.S. Bhosale
                                                ...
                                      CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                    VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV,JJ.

                                         DATE      :   15.09.2026

                 P.C. :


                 .             Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on
                 record the notices dated 22.08.2024 and 03.09.2024 sent to
                 the petitioner by R.P.A.D. for giving instructions along with
                 covers of those notices. As such, it appears that there are no
                 instructions given by the petitioner to his counsel. As such
                 appearance of learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby
                 discharged.
                 2.            Further report of Resource Personnel of this
                 Court indicates that the petitioner had filed this petition for
                 granting compensation to him of Rs.1,50,000/- for his
                 malicious prosecution at the hands of the respondents, but
                 the      petitioner   appears    to   have     forwarded     another
                 communication         dated   30.08.2024     contending    that   this
                 petition was filed on his behalf by forging his signature.
                                                      599.2022WP

                                2

Report further indicates that after April, 2022, the petitioner
did not even circulate the matter till today.
3.         Under such circumstances, considering the gross
negligence of the petitioner, the petition stands dismissed for
non-prosecution.




[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]             [SANDIPKUMAR C.MORE]
        JUDGE                            JUDGE
sga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…