ALP-31-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO. 31 OF 2026 HAUSABAI DADARAO TAYDE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .… Mr. Subhash K. Savangikar, Advocate for Applicant Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar, APP for Respondent No.1 Mr. Shankar B. Kendre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 .… CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON : : 22 September, 2026 23 September, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Original complainant, who instituted private complaint alleging commission of offence under Sections 504 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C., is dissatisfied by the order passed by trial Court dated 09.03.2026 on Exhibit-1 in S.C.C. 501 of 2022, dismissing complaint for want of prosecution. 2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the present applicant had instituted the above complaint alleging commission of offence under Sections 504 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. against the respondents. That, matter appeared on the board 1 of 3 2026:BHC-AUG:43119 (( 2 )) ALP-31-2026 almost 26 times and complainant was present on only 10 dates, but was absent on 16 dates. The applicant is illiterate person and moreover, resides in the remote area and as such, the applicant had no knowledge about the status of the matter filed by her. Learned trial Court has dismissed the application for want of prosecution and therefore, for above reasons learned counsel prays to restore the matter by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 09.03.2026. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the application, pointing out that the matter is three years old, that the complainant was repeatedly absent, and that she failed to prosecute the matter. Despite sufficient opportunity having been granted, no steps were taken, and the impugned order came to be passed, which, according to him, is justified. Learned counsel also placed on record an affidavit to show that the applicant was undergoing training and, therefore, submitted that the relief sought may be granted. 4. Heard. Perused the record. Copies of rozanama are also placed on record. It emerges that present applicant had instituted private complaint under Sections 504 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. 2 of 3 (( 3 )) ALP-31-2026 against the respondent. The complaint was instituted on 27.04.2022. Copies of rozanama show that, matter appeared on the board regularly i.e. on 15.06.2022, 25.06.2022, 03,08,2022, 04.11.2022 and so on. It appears that, the complainant was absent as many as 16 times. Therefore, apparently, there is negligence on the part of the complainant conducting the proceeding instituted by her. The impugned order is of 2026. For three years the matter seems to gone unattended for sufficiently long time. As pointed out, it does appear that learned trial Court has posted the matter for orders of dismissal on 23.02.2026, 27.02.2026 and finally on 09.03.2026. The complainant failed to appear and contest the proceedings, therefore, impugned order has been passed. Indeed, there has been a failure on the part of the complainant to prosecute the matter. Mere illiteracy or residence in a remote area cannot be considered sufficient grounds to excuse the complainant’s failure to diligently prosecute the matter. No good case is made out. Therefore, following order is passed. O R D E R Leave is refused. [ ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. ] SMS 3 of 3