SANJAY GAJANAN RAKHUNDE v. DHANANJAY HAMBIR RAKHUNDE AND ANR
APEAL/1235/2025 · 2026-09-01
Criminal Appealbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4114 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4114 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 41-APEAL 1235-25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1235 OF 2025 Sanjay Gajanan Rakhunde … Appellant Vs. Dhananjay Hambir Rakhunde & Anr. … Respondents ----- Ms. Neha M. Zanje i/by Rahul S. Kate for the Appellant. Mr. Rupesh Zade for Respondent No.1. Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for Respondent No.2-State. -----
CORAM :
N.R. BORKAR, J.
DATE :
01ST SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. :
1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 03rd June 2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indapur.
2. By the impugned order, the Learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint case filed by the present Appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 427, 465, 468 and 416 of the Indian Penal Code for want of prosecution.
3. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned Counsel for contesting Respondent No.1.
4.
Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was diligently prosecuting the complaint case in question for more than five years. It is submitted that no prejudice is going to be caused to the Mugdha 1 of 2
2 41-APEAL 1235-25.doc contesting Respondent No.1 if the complaint case is restored to file.
5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent No.1 submits that the complaint was pending for long time for recording evidence before charge. It is submitted that in spite of multiple opportunities no evidence was led and thus ultimately matter was dismissed. It is submitted that thus no interference is called for in the impugned order.
6. I have perused the roznama. Though there appears to be some negligence on the part of the appellant to prosecute the matter, however, it appears that process was issued for serious offences and thus in the interest of justice, I am inclined to set aside the impugned order. Hence, the following order:
ORDER i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned order is set aside. iii. R.C.C. No.46 of 2011 is restored on the file of Learned Magistrate.
7. The Criminal Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.) Mugdha 2 of 2