Bombay High Court
SANJIVANI RAMKRISHNA KALEversusPRAVIN KALLAPPA GHUGARE AND ANR
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjivani Ramkrishna Kale, filed a criminal writ petition (No. 717 of 2026) but failed to appear before the Court despite multiple listings, including a specific listing on 7 September 2026 for dismissal to give an opportunity to appear. The Court again listed the matter on 11 September 2026 for disposal, yet neither the petitioner nor the petitioner’s advocate, Sumedh Ramkrishna Kale, were present physically or via video conference. The respondent’s counsel, Shri Shriram Chaudhari, argued that sufficient opportunities had been provided and that the petitioner had not circulated the petition since 10 July 2026. Considering the repeated non‑appearance and lack of prosecution, the Court exercised its inherent power to dismiss the petition for non‑prosecution. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioner’s failure to appear despite multiple opportunities
Subjects
- non‑prosecution
- writ petition
- dismissal
- court procedure
- absence of parties
Judgment
909 - CR WP - 717 - 2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
VAIBHAV
RAMESH
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV RAMESH
JADHAV
Date: 2026.09.11
15:32:57 +0530 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 717 OF 2026
Sanjivani Ramkrishna Kale … Petitioner
V/s.
Pravin Kallappa Ghugare & Anr. … Respondents
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. Shriram Chaudhari, APP for the State.
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026
P.C.:
1. On 7th September 2026, the following order was passed:
“1. On 31st August 2026, the following order was passed:
“1. This Petition is of the year 2024.
2. On 18th June 2024, none appeared for the Petitioner.
3. Today, when this Petition was called out, neither the Petitioner
nor the Advocate for the Petitioner is present either physically or
through V.C. mode.
4. Mr. Chaudhari, learned A.P.P. is present.
5. To afford an opportunity to the Petitioner / Advocate for the
Petitioner to appear, list this matter on 7th September 2026, under the
caption ‘For Dismissal’.”
2. The reason for passing the said order and listing the matter under the
caption “For Dismissal” was to afford an opportunity to the Petitioner /
Advocate for the Petitioner to appear and pursue the present Petition. Today,
when this Petition was called out, neither the Petitioner nor the Advocate for
the Petitioner is present, despite the caution by way of listing the matter
under the caption “For Dismissal”.
3. In the interest of justice, and to afford an opportunity to the Petitioner
VRJ 1
909 - CR WP - 717 - 2026.docx
/ Advocate for the Petitioner to appear and argue the matter, by way of a last
opportunity, list this matter on 11th September 2026 “for disposal”. To be
listed on supplementary board.”
2. Today, when the matter was called out, the names of the
Petitioner (Sanjivani Ramkrishna Kale) and the learned Advocate-on-
Record (Mr. Sumedh Ramkrishna Kale) were called out. Neither the
Petitioner nor the learned Advocate is present, either physically or
through video conferencing mode.
3. Mr. S. S. Chaudhari, learned APP appearing for the State, by
referring to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order dated 7th September 2026,
submits that more than sufficient opportunities were afforded to the
Petitioner to appear and argue the case. He states that since 10th July
2026, this matter was neither circulated nor any effort was made by the
Petitioner to circulate this Petition. He, therefore, insists for dismissal of
the Petition.
4. In view of the above, this Court is left with no other option but to
dismiss this Petition for non-prosecution.
5. Writ Petition No. 717 of 2026 is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
VRJ 2
Checking your session…