Bombay High Court

NARAYAN S/O. ASHOK PAGARE (MALI)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution as the petitioner showed no interest in advancing the proceedings.

Summary

Narayan Pagare filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 648 of 2018 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, seeking relief against the State of Maharashtra and others. The Court had earlier, on 31 July 2026, granted the petitioner a last chance to advance the matter and warned of dismissal if not worked out. The petitioner’s counsel requested additional time to obtain instructions, which the Court allowed. However, even after the extension, the petitioner failed to provide any instructions or pursue the case. The Court inferred that the petitioner was not interested in proceeding and consequently dismissed the petition for non‑prosecution.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate course of action when a petitioner fails to provide instructions or pursue a criminal writ petition despite being granted time?

Subjects

criminal writ petition
non prosecution
dismissal
procedural default
court orders

Judgment

                                    (1)
                                               922- Cri. W. P. 648-2018.odt
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

             CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 648 OF 2018

                NARAYAN S/O. ASHOK PAGARE (MALI)
                              VERSUS
            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                 …..
       APP for Respondents: Mrs. M. N. Ghanekar
                                 ...

                   CORAM :        SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, &
                                  VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.J.

                   DATED :        August 21, 2026

ORDER:-

1.     None for the petitioner.

2.     The record shows that under order dated 31.07.2026, we had

already granted last chance and made it clear that if the matter is not

worked out today, it will be dismissed. Thereafter also, the learned

counsel for the petitioner had sought time to take instructions, from

the petitioner. However, despite granting such time, no instructions

are given by the petitioner.

3.     As such, it appears that the petitioner is not interested in the

proceedings with the matter. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed

for non prosecution.



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

YSK/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…