Bombay High Court

ALKA @ RAMKAUR TUKARAM DHUMALversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 622 of 2021 in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against the State of Maharashtra. Over the ensuing years, the petitioner failed to pursue the matter, did not circulate the petition, and did not provide instructions to counsel. The petitioner’s advocate, U.A. Sayyed, also reported having no instructions from the client. No notices were issued by the Court for a prolonged period, indicating a lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner. The Court observed that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the case and consequently dismissed the petition for non‑prosecution. The dismissal was ordered by Judges Sandipkumar C. More and Vaishali Patil‑Jadhav.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate judicial response when a petitioner shows no interest in prosecuting a criminal writ petition and fails to cooperate with counsel?

Subjects

non‑prosecution
criminal writ petition
procedural default
court dismissal
petitioner's inaction

Judgment

                                (1)
                                               14 Cri.WP-622.2021.odt
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               BENCH AT AURANGABAD
      14 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 622 OF 2021

          ALKA @ RAMKAUR TUKARAM DHUMAL
                       VERSUS
        THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                …
     Mr. U.A. Sayyed, Advocate holding for Mr. K.N. Shermale,
                    Advocate for the petitioner.
          Mrs. Uma Bhosale, A.P.P. for respondents-State.
                           ...
                 CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                         VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                 DATED : 7 SEPTEMBER 2026.

Per Court :

.     The record shows that after filing this petition in the year

2021, the petitioner did not even circulate the matter. Learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner is also not having

instructions. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner has not

instructed his own lawyer.      Moreover, notices are also not

issued in this matter since long.       Thus, it appears that the

petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the matter diligently,

and therefore, the same stands dismissed for non prosecution.



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




VD_Dhirde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…