(1) CRI. APLN. 2137.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2137 OF 2010 Gajanan S/o Bhagwan Borkar, Age : 40 years, Occu.: Service, R/o : Shastrinagar, Hingoli, Tq. and Dist. Hingoli APPLICANT (Orig. Accused) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. B.S. Kudale, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for the respondent/State. Mr. D.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent no.3 ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 8TH DECEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By consent, Rule is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard learned Advocates for the applicant and the respondent no. 3 as well learned A.P.P. 3. The Application is filed for quashing of the F.I.R. no. 87 of 2010 registered at Ahmedpur Police Station for offences under section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. It is pertinent to note that the F.I.R. (2) CRI. APLN. 2137.2010 was lodged by the respondent no.2-Ram Dahiphale alleging that his wife i.e. the respondent no.3 was forcibly taken away in Indica Car vehicle no. MH-38-700 by the applicant on 6.5.2010 while she was plucking flowers in the courtyard of their house. 4. The respondent no.3 has filed reply affidavit. She asserted that she had gone to pilgrimage during summer vacation alongwith the applicant. She denied the allegations made in the FIR. She states that she had left the house alongwith the applicant on her own accord for religious purpose. 5. The respondent no.2, though served, has not appeared in this Court. 6. The learned A.P.P. states that the Investigating Officer carried out due investigation into the crime alleged against the applicant. The learned APP further states that the Investigating Officer has filed "C" summary report because the investigation revealed that the respondent no.2 lodged the FIR due to mis-understanding. In other (3) CRI. APLN. 2137.2010 words, no incriminating material was found against the applicant. 7. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the respondent no.3 is a married woman. She is wife of the respondent no.2-Ram. She is a school teacher. It is probable that she left house of her husband and on her own accord either for accompanying the applicant for so called pilgrimage/religious purpose or may be due to their intimacy with each other. In case there is an extra-marital relationship between the applicant and the respondent no.3-Sindhubai, appropriate administrative action may be the proper course to be taken by the concerned Department. However, the allegations about kidnapping of the respondent no.3-Sindhubai are not corroborated by any tangible material and as such the FIR is un- sustainable. Consequently, the Application is allowed. The FIR lodged against the applicant is quashed. 8. The learned A.P.P. to forward copy of this order to the C.E.O. of Zilla Parishad, Hingoli for (4) CRI. APLN. 2137.2010 necessary action as may be deemed proper. Learned A.P.P. may act on copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar. Sd/- [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp