1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1110 OF 2009 Prabhakar Rajaram Mahadik ..Petitioner versus Sunil Vishnu Mahadik & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. Rahul Thakar i/b. Mr. P. V. Desai for Petitioner. Mr. K. S. Patil for Respondent No. 1. Mrs. P. P. Bhosale – APP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the prosecution initiated under Section 323, 324, 452, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of JMFC, Panvel. 3. According to the petitioner there is no substance in the prosecution because the criminal complaint was lodged before the court one month after the incident. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 14th August 2008 and the complaint was made to the court on 20th September 2008. 2 According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this delay by itself is sufficient for quashing the prosecution particularly since it is not explained. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that N.C. Complaint was lodged by the victim i.e. complainant on 15th August 2008 soon after the incident. However, the police apparently did not take cognizance, therefore after waiting for sometime complainant filed complaint before the court. 5. The rival contentions clearly require the trial to go on. Since the question of delay, if any, can be determined by the trial court only after the evidence is led. It may be noted that the petitioner has not pleaded delay as a bar to the trial but has pleaded delay to point out the credibility of the complainant. 6. The next contention on behalf of the petitioner is the absence of medical evidence. It is also a matter which needs to be gone at the stage of trial. There is no merit in the petition. 7. Rule discharged. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)