Bombay High Court
JYOTI W/O. SHIRISH GOLEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
Jyoti, the petitioner, filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 891 of 2019 against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents. The petitioner’s counsel returned the brief, and the petitioner failed to engage new representation. Respondent No. 8’s counsel alleged that the petitioner was not serious about prosecuting the matter. The Court observed that the petitioner had not taken steps to continue the proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when a petitioner fails to prosecute a criminal writ petition?
Subjects
- criminal writ petition
- dismissal
- want of prosecution
- procedural default
- court procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:35673-DB
1 915 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 891 OF 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 891 OF 2019
JYOTI W/O. SHIRISH GOLEKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…..
Adv. A. N. Borade h/f Adv. G. K. Thigale, Advocate for the Petitioner
Adv. A. S. Shinde, APP for Respondents-State
Adv.V. V. Gujar, Advocate for Respondent No. 6 and 7
Adv. S. R. Shirsat, Advocate for Respondent No. 8
…..
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 11/08/2026
Per Court:
. The learned counsel holding for Mr. Thigale, submits that his
office has already returned the brief to the petitioner. However,
despite this, the petitioner did not care to engage another advocate.
2. On the contrary, the learned counsel for respondent No. 8
submits that the petitioner herself is a further encroacher. Be that
as it may, the petitioner does not appear to be serious about
prosecuting the matter.
3. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed for want of
prosecution.
( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )
shivani/
Checking your session…