Hitesh Dhansukhlal Gohil and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra

¶1

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPALCHANDAN GOPAL CHANDAN Date:2026.02.18 20:26:35 +0530

¶2

(913) WP-648.26.DOCX

¶3

lgc

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 648 OF 2026

¶6

Hitesh Dhansukh Gohil and ors. : Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra : Respondent. ______________________________________________________ Mr. Aditya R Parmar, for the Petitioners. Mr. Prasanna P Malshe, APP for the Respondent/State. PSI Mahesh Sawant, Goregaon Police Station present.

¶7

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATED : 18 FEBRUARY 2026

¶8

PC:-

¶9

By the present Petition, the Petitioners have sought for the following substantive relief :-

¶10

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Trial court to conduct the trial on Day-to-Day basis in C.C. No.6702204/PW/2015 pending before the Ld. JMFC, 67th Court in connection with CR No.189 of 2014 registered with Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai for offences punishable u/s 4898A, 406, 34 of the IPC.”

¶11

Mr. Aditya Parmar, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, refers to Exhibit-”C” page 64 of the paper book i.e. the order dated 12 March 2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (ST) No.4306 of 2025, and submits that despite the said order

¶12

1

¶13

(913) WP-648.26.DOCX

¶14

the proceedings before the Trial Court are not taken up expeditiously. He submits that the Petitioner – Husband has not sought any adjournment and matter has not been adjourned at his behest or at his instance at any point of time.

¶15

The order dated 12 March 2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (ST) No.4306 of 2025 reads as follows :-

¶16

“1. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking relief of expediting trial.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent has filed complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 against the petitioners on 30th April 2015 which is pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Hence, requested to expedite the trial.

¶18

Learned APP submitted that appropriate order be passed.

¶19

Considering the submissions of both learned counsel as well as the matter is pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court since 2014 and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are senior citizens, I pass following order :-

¶20

:ORDER:

¶21

(i) the petition is allowed.

¶22

(ii) Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 67th Court at Borivali, Mumbai, is requested to expedite the trial.

¶23

Mr. Prasanna Malshe, learned APP for the Respondent/State submits that though it may be a matter of

¶24

2

¶25

(913) WP-648.26.DOCX

¶26

record which will have to be verified as far as the Petitioner – Husband is concerned, however, he on instructions states that other Petitioners have been requesting for exemption before the Trial Court. Mr. Prasanna Malshe submits that the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court is bound by the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition (ST) No.4306 of 2025 and that the prosecution would point out the said order before the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court and ensure that the order is complied He submits that in view of the order dated 12 March 2025, no further directions are required.

¶27

The Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court to take note of the order dated 12 March 2025 and ensure compliance with the same.

¶28

Criminal Writ Petition No.648 of 2026 is disposed of.

¶29

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

¶30

3

Hitesh Dhansukhlal Gohil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hitesh Dhansukhlal Gohil and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dnyaneshwar Namdeo Sapre vs State of Maharashtra

Vinod Chandrakant Holgunde and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Laxman Eknath Pakhale and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nitin Ramesh Kotkar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (Kmbl) vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yar Mohammad Tasibullah Mansuri and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.