srk * 1 * wp. 1811.2004.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1811 OF 2004 Krishnan Dinesh ..... Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..... Respondents Mr. A.B. Vagyani, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Bimal Bhabhde i/b Apte & Co. Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mrs.R.V. Newton, APP for State/respondent. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2009. PC : 1 Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2 By the impugned order, admittedly, delay in filing the criminal complaint was condoned without issuing notice to the accused- petitioner. The order, therefore, is illegal. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and others, reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 231, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for proceeding afresh, in accordance with law. 3. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. [S.A. BOBDE, J.]