Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11345 (BOM)

SHIVRAJ GURPADAPPA DHARNE v. THE STATE OF MAHARSHTRA AND OTHERS

APPLN/3969/2013 · 2026-09-21

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

37appl3969-13dbt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 37 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3969 OF 2013 IN WP/1164/2012 Shivraj Gurpadappa Dharne VERSUS The State Of Maharshtra And Others ... Mr. Joshi Hrishikesh A And A M Awate, Advocate for Applicant-Absent Mr. S. A. Gikwad, APP for Respondents State Mr. Amol Gandhi, Advocate for other Respondents CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. Dated : 21st September, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. None appears for the applicant. 2. The learned APP submits that the impugned order in the present writ petition arose from the proceedings pending at the relevant time before the learned JMFC Court No. 5 Latur in Cr. M. A. No. 451 of 2011. The record indicates that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 18.01.2013. The applicant, thereafter, had preferred Criminal Application No. 2295 of 2013. That application was also disposed of by order dated 25.04.2013. The present criminal application in the original Writ Petition No. 1164 of 2012 is for recalling the said order dated 25.04.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Application No. 2295 of 2013. 3. Without going into the merits of the matter, the learned APP 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:43266 37appl3969-13dbt has tendered a copy of the judgment and order dated 26.08.2023 passed by the learned JMFC, Court No.5, Latur in the original proceedings i.e. Criminal M. A. No. 451 of 2011. The Perusal of the said order shows that the original proceedings itself has been disposed by a detailed judgment and order by the learned trial court. The order dated 26.08.2013 is taken on record and marked as Exh. X for the purpose of identification. 4. In the light of the original proceedings from which the criminal writ petition and the present application arose in itself has been disposed of by a reasoned order, in that event, the present application does not survive. 5. In view of the above, the criminal application stands disposed of as infructuous. (HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) JPChavan 2 of 2