Disposed¶26

Mithilesh D. Rajput and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Feb 2026WP/675/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of criminal writ petition challenging impugned summons in Criminal Case No. SS/3338/2013 before the 30th Court, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurla, Mumbai; preliminary objections on maintainability (revisable order) and delay and latches; petition disposed of as withdrawn with leave; Bombay High Court; Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe; 16 February 2026.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the petition; Criminal Writ Petition No. 675 of 2026 disposed of as withdrawn; no substantive relief granted and no adjudication on merits. ¶26

Mithilesh D. Rajput and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

12-WP-675-2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 675 OF 2026

¶3

Mithilesh D. Rajput And Anr. … Petitioners

¶4

V/s.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sunil Mishra, for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶9

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 16^th FEBRUARY, 2026.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

This Petition filed on 2^nd February, 2026 seeks the following

¶12

reliefs:

¶13

b) That the impugned summons issued to the Petitioners in the criminal case No. SS/3338/2013 pending before the 30^th Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kurla, Mumbai may be set-aside and/or quashed and/or a direction in the like nature be issued thereby declaring the said summons to be illegal, null and void and hence, be quashed qua the petitioners.

¶14

c) That the criminal case No. SS/3338/2013 pending before the 30^th Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class at Kurla, Mumbai may be set-aside and/or quashed and/or a direction in the like nature be issued thereby declaring the said summons to be illegal, null and void and

Arjun

12-WP-675-2026.doc

hence, be quashed qua the petitioners.

¶19

Though the petition does not make a reference to the date of the impugned order, however, the impugned order which is at page No. 21 indicates the same was passed on 20^th November, 2013.

¶20

Mr. Khan, learned APP for the state raised preliminary objections, firstly to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground that the impugned FIR is a revisable order and secondly on the ground of delay and latches.

¶21

Faced with the said objection, Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Advocate for the Petitioner sought a passover. After the passover, at his request the matter was taken up. Mr. Sunil Mishra, on instructions from the Petitioners crave leave to withdraw the present Petition. Request made by Mr. Mishra, not objected to by Mr. Khan, learned APP.

¶22