Bombay High Court

SANGITA ANIL RAIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court allowed the restoration application, dispensing with notice to the second respondent and ordering the case restored, subject to removal of office objections.

Summary

The applicant, Sangita Anil Rai, filed a criminal application seeking restoration of Criminal Application No. 698 of 2021. The applicant argued that the second respondent had not caused appearance in the original proceedings and therefore notice to that respondent could be dispensed with. The court found the record supported this contention and dispensed with notice, also accepting the State's waiver of service. The court held that the delay in filing the restoration application was satisfactorily explained and caused no prejudice to the second respondent. Consequently, the application for restoration was allowed, subject to the applicant removing office objections within two weeks, after which notice would be issued; failure to remove objections would result in dismissal.

Issues considered

Whether notice to the second respondent can be dispensed with in a restoration application
Whether the State can waive service of notice
Whether the delay in filing the restoration application warrants dismissal
Whether the restoration of Criminal Application No. 698 of 2021 should be ordered

Subjects

criminal procedure
restoration of proceedings
waiver of service
notice dispensation
delay
office objections

Judgment

                                                           912-APPLN-1489-2026.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 912 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1489 OF 2026
                             IN APPLN-698-2021

                              Sangita Anil Rai
                                 VERSUS
                   The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                    …..
Mr. Abhaysinh K. Bhosle, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondent – State.
                                    …..

                                                   CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J
                                                   DATE  : SEPTEMBER 9, 2026

P. C. :

1.        Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent No.2 has

not caused appearance in the original proceedings and therefore notice to

the said respondent be dispensed with.

2.        Perusal of the records supports contention of learned counsel for the

applicant. Hence, notice to respondent No.2 stands dispensed with.

3.        Learned APP waives service on behalf of State.

4.        Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5.        Perusal of the application indicates that the delay caused in filing

application for restoration is satisfactorily explained. No prejudice is caused

to respondent No.2 in case the application is allowed and the original

proceeding is restored. Hence, the application stands allowed in terms of

prayer clause (b). Criminal Application No.698 of 2021 stands restored to


                                     Page 1 of 2
Kiran Kawre
                                                         912-APPLN-1489-2026.odt



its original position.

6.      Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to remove the office

objections within a period of two weeks. If office objections are removed in

this time, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 23 October 2026.

7.      Learned APP waives service on behalf of State.

8.      In case objections are not removed, the application shall stand

dismissed without reference to this Court.




                                                     (R. M. JOSHI, J.)




                                   Page 2 of 2
Kiran Kawre

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…