Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

PRADIP SHREEDHARRAO JOSHIversusTHE POLICE INSPECTOR AND ANOTHER

Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The petition is dismissed for non‑compliance with the Court’s order.

Summary

The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition challenging a notice issued by the police. The High Court ordered the petitioner to place on record a copy of the reply to the impugned notice by 23 July 2026. The petitioner failed to comply, and the Court granted a further opportunity on 6 August 2026, again at the petitioner's request. Despite the extensions, the petitioner neither appeared nor filed the required reply, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for non‑compliance with its order.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ petition may be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order to file a reply
  • Whether the petitioner's non‑appearance and failure to file the reply constitute abandonment of the petition

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • non‑compliance
  • dismissal
  • procedural default
  • court order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38902-DB


                                            1             938 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 918 OF 2026



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                    938 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 918 OF 2026
                           PRADIP SHREEDHARRAO JOSHI
                                           VERSUS
                        THE POLICE INSPECTOR AND ANOTHER
                                             …..
            None for the petitioner.
            Adv. S. J. Salgare, APP for Respondents-State
                                             …..

                                        CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                                VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                                        DATED : 27/08/2026
            Per Court:

            .          None for the petitioner.

            2.         The record shows that under order dated 23.07.2026, the

            learned counsel for the petitioner had undertaken to place on

            record a copy of the reply to the impugned notice. Subsequently, on

            06.08.2026, last chance was also granted and that too at the

            request of learned counsel for the petitioner for complying with the

            earlier order today. None remains present on behalf of the

            petitioner. Thus, it appears that the petitioner is not interested in

            prosecuting the matter. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed

            for non-compliance with the order of this Court.




            ( VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )

            shivani/


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.