Shrikant Govind Sangvikar v. Netaji Manik Pawar And Another

2026:BHC-AUG:17207 21 CRI WP NO. 488 OF 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 488 OF 2026 Shrikant Govind Sangvikar

VERSUS

Netaji Manik Pawar And Another ...

• Mr. D. B. Rode, Advocate (Appointed) for the Petitioner • Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent No. 2 - State ...

CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.

DATED : 20.04.2026 PER COURT :

1.

Heard Mr. Rodge learned appointed counsel for the petitioner. 2.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is an aged person and a rustic villager, who was not aware of the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the learned JMFC, Tuljapur, whereby the application seeking action under Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. for filing a false affidavit came to be rejected. It is submitted that there was a delay of 4 months and 8 days in filing the revision application before the Revisional Court. However, the learned District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Dharashiv, by order dated 15.07.2025, rejected the application for condonation of delay without properly considering the reasons assigned by the petitioner. Jhs/ 1/2

21 CRI WP NO. 488 OF 2026 3.

I have perused the impugned order dated 15.07.2025. The respondent-accused had opposed the application for condonation of delay. Upon consideration of the material on record, it appears that no sufficient cause was made out by the petitioner to justify the delay of 4 months and 8 days in filing the revision application. The Revisional Court has, therefore, rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay.

4.

Moreover, the order dated 06.01.2024 passed by the learned JMFC indicates that no material was placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate the allegation that the accused had filed a false affidavit so as to attract action under Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. 5.

In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

6.

Since the learned counsel for the petitioner is appointed through legal aid, the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee shall pay the requisite fees as per rules.

( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. ) Jhs/ 2/2