Dismissed¶26

Chetan Rajnikant Salve v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2026WP/3804/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Writ Petition No. 3804 of 2024 (with Interim Application No. 1824 of 2026), Chetan Rajnikant Salve v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., coram M. M. Sathaye, J., decided 12 June 2026. Dismissal of writ petition for want of prosecution where petitioner was uncontactable and instructing advocate had no instructions and sought discharge/withdrawal of vakalatnama; interim and ad-interim relief vacated; pending application disposed. Keywords: non-prosecution, dismissal for default, advocate discharge, withdrawal of vakalatnama, no instructions from client, last chance, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution, the Court treating the state of the record as a failure to prosecute. ¶26

Chetan Rajnikant Salve vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

8.WP.3804.2024 .doc

¶2

Digitally signed by ANANT ANANT KRISHNA KRISHNA NAIK NAIK Date: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 2026.06.12 19:20:01 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION +0530

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3804 OF 2024

¶4

Chetan Rajnikant Salve …Petitioner Versus

¶5

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

¶6

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1824 OF 2026

¶7

Chetan Rajnikant Salve …Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents And Ramdhani S/o. Ramprasad Varma ...Applicant

¶8

****

¶9

Mr. Sachin Suware a/w. Adv. Yogesh Dharra, Ms. Jaya Tiwari i/b. Mr. R. R. Varma for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Dinesh J. Haldankar, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶11

CORAM : M. M. SATHAYE, J.

¶12

DATED : 12^th JUNE 2026

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

On 22.09.2025, it was informed to the Court that the Advocate is trying to establish contact with the Petitioner for taking instructions and the accommodation was sought and it was granted.

¶15

On 08.10.2025, nobody appeared for the Petitioner and the matter was adjourned.

¶16

On 11.11.2025 following order was passed, granting last chance.

¶17

“1. When the matter was called out, the learned Advocate Mr.

¶18

akn

¶19

8.WP.3804.2024 .doc

¶20

Dharra for the Petitioner submits that they are trying to seek instructions from their client in the present matter, however, they have been unable to get any instructions so far.

¶21

As a matter of last chance and at the request of Mr. Dharra, stand over to 2nd December 2025.”

¶22

On 04.12.2025, following order was passed recording inability of the Advocate to proceed with the matter for want of instructions and expressing desire to withdraw vakalatnama:

¶23

“1. A request is made by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner since they do not have any instructions from the Petitioner, they have filed appropriate application for withdrawing their Vakalatnama. At her request, for taking appropriate steps, adjournment is granted.

¶24

List the matter on 22.01.2026.”

¶25

Today, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that despite their best efforts, the Petitioner cannot be contacted and therefore, above interim application is filed by advocate seeking discharge.

¶26

For all practical purposes, this is a failure to prosecute the Petition. Hence, the Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim/Ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated.

¶27

In view of the dismissal of the Petition, pending Application is also disposed of.

¶28

(M. M. SATHAYE, J.)

¶29

akn

Chetan Rajnikant Salve v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Rajnikant Salve v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shankar Laxman Sutar and Anr. vs Sou. Manisha Bijal Shah and Anr.

Deepak Anant Shelar and Ors. vs Raghunath Vishram Gurav and Ors.

Commissioner of Customs, Prosecution Cell, Csmia, Mumbai through Patel Paresh Jashwantlal vs Marin D/O Kazuyoshi Kataigi and Ors.

Auto Credit Corporation vs Mahesh Mithalal Trivedi

The State of Maharashtra vs Alhad Balaram Mhatre And Anr.

President Devasthan Sthanik Sallagar Samiti vs Mahadev Jotiba Patil Deceased Thr. Lrs. Malu Mahadev Patil and Ors.