Dismissed¶24

Rohit Nitin Hatangale and Others v. Nayan Rohit Hatangale

Bombay HC16 Dec 2025APPLN/1597/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application No. 1597 of 2025, Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench, decided 16-12-2025 by Abhay J. Mantri, J. Applicants Rohit Nitin Hatangale & Ors. v. Respondent Nayan Rohit Hatangale. Respondent's pursis (Exhibit 11, 09-12-2025) led the Magistrate to delete names of respondent Nos. 3 to 6 (applicant No.3 and three others); applicants Nos. 1 (Rohit) and 2 (Laxmi) withdrew. Result: application dismissed qua applicant Nos. 1 and 2, infructuous qua applicant No.3. Keywords: withdrawal of application, infructuous, pursis, deletion of names, Roznama CIMS, Hatangale.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed qua applicant Nos. 1 and 2 (leave to withdraw accepted); disposed of as infructuous qua applicant No.3 and three others whose names were deleted following the respondent's pursis. ¶24

Rohit Nitin Hatangale and Others Vs Nayan Rohit Hatangale — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

918.APPLN.1597.2025.odt

¶2

2025:BHC-AUG:35537

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1597 OF 2025

¶5

Rohit Nitin Hatangale & Ors.

¶6

...Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Nayan Rohit Hatangale ...Respondent

¶9

¶10

Mr. Chormal Ajit B., Advocate for the Applicants Mr. B. D. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2025

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, in terms of the undertaking given by her before this Court on 02^nd December, 2025, the respondent had filed a pursis (Exhibit 11) on 09^th December, 2025 before the learned Magistrate, stating that she does not wish to proceed against respondent Nos.3 to 6, i.e., applicant No.3 and three others, accordingly, a prayer was made for deletion of their names from the from the array of the respondents.

¶15

The learned counsel for the respondent has produced a copy of the pursis, on which the learned Magistrate has passed the order “ seen and filed .” The same is taken on record and marked “ X ” for identification purposes.

¶16

Pursuant to the said Pursis, the learned Magistrate has passed an order below Exhibit 1 deleting the names of respondent Nos. 3 to 6

¶17

Page1 of 2

¶18

Shrikant Malani

¶19

918.APPLN.1597.2025.odt

¶20

therein, which include applicant No.3 herein. The same is reflected in the Roznama dated 09^th December 2025 of the learned Magistrate, obtained from the official website of the District Court (CIMS). The said Roznama is taken on record and marked “ Y ” for identification purposes.

¶21

It also appears that on 07^th May 2025, the learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application to the extent of applicant No.1 – Rohit. Similarly, today, the learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the application to the extent of the application of applicant No. 2 – Laxmi. His statement is accepted.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid statements, the application is dismissed qua applicant Nos. 1 and 2.

¶23

It further emerges that the application against applicant No.3 and three other persons has already been withdrawn, and their names have been deleted from the proceedings; therefore, the present application has become infructuous qua those persons.

¶24

In view of the above, the application is dismissed qua applicant Nos. 1 and 2, and the application stands disposed of against applicant No.3 as infructuous.

¶25

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶26

Page2 of 2

¶27

Shrikant Malani

Rohit Nitin Hatangale and Others v. Nayan Rohit Hatangale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Nitin Hatangale and Others v. Nayan Rohit Hatangale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashiya Moinoddin Mehtar and Others vs Moinoddin Afzal Mehtar

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Br Mngr, Raviraj Chambers, Latur Vs Sumedha Jagannath Gitte and Ors.

Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Br Mngr, Raviraj Chambers, Latur Vs Sumedha Jagannath Gitte and Ors.

Mayur Jaykumar Vora and Others vs Dayanand Vitthalrao Patil and Others

Hasmukh Tarachand Sheth Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sujata Nishant Manwar Vs Nishant Ramesh Manwar