Bombay High Court
DATTATRAY CHANDRAKANT POREversusSUREKHA DATTATRAY PORE AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Summary
The petitioner, Dattatray Chandrakant Pore, filed a criminal writ petition challenging an unspecified matter. The petitioner and his counsel failed to appear in court on multiple dates, including 3rd September, 15th September, and 21st September 2026, despite being listed for hearing. The respondent State, represented by A.P.P. Mr. C.D. Mali, argued that the repeated non‑appearance indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the petition. The Court, noting the petitioner’s absence and the respondent’s submission, exercised its discretion to dismiss the petition for non‑prosecution. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without any substantive adjudication on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition may be dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioner’s failure to appear in court
Subjects
- non-prosecution
- writ petition
- court procedure
- absence of parties
- dismissal
Judgment
6-WP-672-2026 (CR).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 672 OF 2026
Dattatray Chandrakant Pore …...Petitioner
Versus
Surekha Dattatray Pore And Anr. …...Respondent
——————
None for the Petitioners.
Mr. C.D. Mali, A.P.P. for Respondent No.2-State.
——————
Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Date : 21st September 2026.
PER COURT :
1. This Criminal Writ Petition is at Serial No. 6 on the ‘Daily Cause List’.
2. On 15th September 2026, the following order was passed :
“1. On 3rd September, 2026, as a caution to the Petitioner
/Advocate for the Petitioner that this matter may be
dismissed for non-prosecution, this Petition was listed today
under the caption "For Dismissal".
2. Today, again, neither the Petitioner nor the Advocate for the
Petitioner were present, either physically or through V.C.
mode.
osk 1 of 2
6-WP-672-2026 (CR).docx
3. To afford an opportunity to the Petitioner / Advocate for the
Petitioner to appear and argue the case, as a matter of last
indulgence, list this matter on 21 st September, 2026 under
the caption "For Disposal" on Supplementary Board.”
3. Today, when this matter was called out, the names of the Petitioner and
the Advocate on Record (Mr. Prathamesh Patil), were called out by the
Sheristadar. Neither the Petitioner nor the Advocate for the Petitioner is
present in Court either physically or through V.C. mode.
4. Mr. Mali, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2-State, by referring to
the orders dated 3rd September 2026 and 15th September 2026, submits that
the absence of the Petitioner and the Advocate for the Petitioner before this
Court is an indication of the Petitioner not being interested in pursuing this
Petition and therefore insists for dismissal of this Petition.
5. In view of the absence of the Petitioner and the Advocate for the
Petitioner, this Court has no other option but to accept the request made by
Mr. Mali, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent No.2-State.
6. In view of the above, Writ Petition No. 672 of 2026 is dismissed for
non-prosecution.
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date: [ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
2026.09.21
20:16:24
+0530
osk 2 of 2
Checking your session…