Bombay High Court

SHAIKH AYYUB USMAN PATELversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

A petition is dismissed when the petitioner shows a lack of diligence in prosecuting the matter.

Summary

The petitioner, Shaikh Ayyub Usman Patel, filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction to the State respondents to register FIRs against a fourth respondent based on applications dated 19 March 2021 and 19 April 2021. The court observed that after 1 April 2022 the petitioner failed to pursue the matter, did not circulate the issue, and did not file a rejoinder as ordered on 1 April 2022. Further, the petitioner did not instruct his counsel for four years, indicating a lack of diligence in prosecuting the case. On this basis, the judges held that the petitioner was not diligent and therefore the petition could not be entertained. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate judicial response when a petitioner fails to diligently prosecute a criminal writ petition?

Subjects

writ petition
non-prosecution
diligence
criminal procedure
High Court

Judgment

                                    (1)
                                                      13 Cri.WP-613.2021.odt
     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
      13 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 613 OF 2021

                 SHAIKH AYYUB USMAN PATEL
                          VERSUS
           THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                  …
       Mr. Chandrakant Thombre, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
                            ...
                  CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                          VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                  DATED : 7 SEPTEMBER 2026.

Per Court :

1.    Though the petition is filed for direction to respondent
Nos.2 and 3 to take action on the basis of the applications
dated 19.03.2021 and 19.04.2021 for registration of F.I.R.
against respondent No.4, however, record shows that after
01.04.2022 the petitioner never circulated the matter.                   The
petitioner did not even file any rejoinder as directed in the
order dated 01.04.2022.


2.    It    appears   that    the   petitioner   is     not   diligent    in
prosecuting the matter.        He even did not instruct his own
lawyer for four years.       Therefore, considering the conduct of
the petitioner, it appears that he is not diligent in prosecuting
the matter and accordingly 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…