Satish Onkar Patil v. State Of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer Ps Barshi Takli

1 5 wp 1017.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1017/2025 (Satish Onkar Patil & anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Y. K. Dhande, Advocate for petitioners.

Mr. A.M. Joshi, APP for respondent.

CORAM: M. M. NERLIKAR, J .

DATED : 10/12/2025.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned APP for respondent No.1/State 2.

The learned counsel for petitioner made following prayers which read as under:- "2.

Quash the proceeding of Regular Criminal Case No.112/2024 registered with the Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barshitakli, Dist. Akola presided over by Shri Mohan Keshavrao Kure, against the present applicants in the interest of justice.

3.

Quash the order of issuance of summons dated 26.06.2023 (exh.1)and dated 04.10.2025 (exh.24) passed in Regular Criminal Case No.112/2024 issued against the present applicants in the interest of justice."

3.

It appears that the petitioner is praying to quash and set aside the Regular Criminal Case No.112/2024 registered with the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barshitakli, Dist. Akola. He further challenges the issuance

2 5 wp 1017.25 of summons dated 26.06.2023 and 04.10.2025.

4.

I do not see any reason to interfere in the proceedings on the count of delay and laches as the complaint was lodged on 07.06.2023. It appears that he also challenged the issuance of summon dated 26.06.2023. After two years, he is approaching this Court and there is no explanation in respect of delay. On the contrary, it appears that in spite of issuance of summons, petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court and it is only after issuance of summons on 04.10.2025, he appeared before the Trial Court. In this view of the matter, I do not see any reason or the ground to interfere in RCC 112/2024 as the matter is hit by delay and laches, hence dismissed. ( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) Gohane