Disposed¶24

Mithlesh D Rajput and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC16 Feb 2026WP/677/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition No. 677 of 2026, Bombay High Court, Ashwin D. Bhobe, J., disposed of as withdrawn on 16-02-2026; challenged summons in Criminal Case SS/3583/2013 (30th Court, JMFC, Kurla, Mumbai), impugned order dated 21-11-2013; preliminary objections of maintainability (revisable order) and delay and laches raised by APP for State of Maharashtra; no merits adjudicated; petitioners Mithlesh D Rajput and another; advocate Sunil Mishra.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to withdraw the Petition; Criminal Writ Petition No. 677 of 2026 disposed of as withdrawn; no substantive relief granted on the prayers. ¶24

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

¶1

14-WP-677-2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 677 OF 2026 Mithlesh D Rajput And Anr. … Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶5

Mr. Sunil Mishra, for the Petitioners Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for the State.

¶6

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

¶7

P.C. :

¶8

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

¶9

reliefs:

¶10

b) That the impugned summons issued to the petitioners in the criminal case No. SS/3583/2013 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.

¶11

c) That the criminal case No. SS/3583/2013 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

Arjun

14-WP-677-2026.doc

thereby declaring the said summons to be illegal, null and void and hence, be quashed qua the petitioners.

¶16

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 21^st November, 2013.

¶17

Ms. Dabholkar, 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.

¶18

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. Sunil Mishra, not objected to by Ms. Dabholkar, learned APP.

¶19