Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DAILYLAW 3245 (BOM)

MOHAN UTTAMRAO INGLE v. STATE OF MAH., THR. PSO DATTAPUR DHAMANGAON RLY DIST AMRAVATI

APL/964/2019 · 2026-01-28

Urmila Joshi Phalke

body2019

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

(1) 19.apl.950.2019 & 964.2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.950 OF 2019 Babanrao Baupraoji Mandavgane and others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Dattapur, Dhamangaon Rly, District Amravati AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.964 OF 2019 Mohan Uttamrao Ingle Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Dattapur, Dhamangaon Rly, District Amravati -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- None for the applicants. Ms. M. A. Barabde, APP for non-applicant /State. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 28/01/2026 1. Both applications are preferred for quashing of the FIR. 2. Learned APP invited my attention towards the order passed in Criminal Application (APL) No.964/2019 wherein permission was already granted to the investigating agency to file a charge sheet and in view of that, the charge sheet was filed. She further invited my attention towards the various orders passed and submitted that despite the charge sheet is filed, no prayer was made to amend the application in both the applications and none is attending the said proceeding. 2026:BHC-NAG:1642-DB (2) 19.apl.950.2019 & 964.2019 3. In Criminal Application (APL) No.964/2019, none is appearing for the applicants though repeatedly called and that continued on various dates. Today also, none is present for the applicants. It reveals that applicants are not interested to proceed with the applications. 4. In view of that, both the applications stand dismissed for want of prosecution. (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Sarkate