Bombay High Court
NEETU VISHAL PINJANI AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to file a revision application before the Sessions Court.
Summary
Petitioners Neetu Vishal Pinjani and others filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the State of Maharashtra. They sought permission to withdraw the petition and instead file a revision application before the Sessions Court. The Court, after hearing counsel, granted leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to file the revision. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, and the Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case. It also noted that any limitation issue arising in the revision can be accounted for under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and directed the Sessions Judge to decide the revision on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition may be withdrawn with liberty to file a revision application before the Sessions Court
- Whether the time spent in prosecuting the writ petition can be counted towards limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 14
Subjects
- writ petition
- withdrawal
- revision application
- limitation
- High Court
- criminal appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
31-WP-6747-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6747 OF 2025
Neetu Vishal Pinjani & Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra …Respondent
Ms. Minal Chandnani a/w Mr. Rajesh Ranglani, for the
Petitioners.
Smt. R. S. Tendulkar, APP for the Respondent-State.
API – M. T. Shinde, Pimpri P. S. is present.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 8th JANUARY 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions,
seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to ?le a revision
application before the Court of Sessions.
3. Leave granted with liberty as prayed for.
Digitally signed
4. The petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to
SANTOSH SUBHASH
by SANTOSH
SUBHASH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date: 2026.01.13
10:51:15 +0530
?le a revision application before the Session Court.
5. The time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the
petition may be accounted for, under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, in the event the question of limitation
arises.
SAINATH 1/2
31-WP-6747-2025.DOC
6. It is clari?ed that, this Court has not entered into the
merits of the matter.
7. In the event such a revision application is ?led, the
learned Sessions Judge is requested to hear and decide the
application, on its own merits and in accordance with law
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH 2/2
Checking your session…