1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.641 OF 2010 Vilas S/o.Uttamrao Ambildhage, Age-42 years, Occu-Rickshaw Driver, Ro.Mukund Nagar, Mukundwadi, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Home Department Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2. The Director General of Police, Maharashtra State Mumbai, 3. The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad City, Aurangabad. 4. The Police Inspector, Mukundwadi Police Station, Aurangabad. 5. Vikash S/o.Prabhudas Rajgire, Age-20 years, Occu-Nil, R/o.Phule Nagar, Osmanpura, Opp. Wagh Shop, Aurangabad. 6. Minabai W/o.Prabhudas Rajgire, Age-40 years, Occu-Service, R/o. as above. RESPONDENTS 2 Mr.P.A.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.D.B.Bhange, learned counsel for respondent no.6. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 21/09/2010 ORAL ORDER : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents to produce Madhuri, daughter of the petitioner, alleged to have been kidnapped by respondents no.5 and 6 on 24/05/2010. 2. According to the petitioner, his daughter Madhuri, 17 years of age, was kidnapped by respondents no.5 and 6 on 24/05/2010. Further according to the petitioner, his daughter has not been seen since the date she was allegedly kidnapped by the respondents no.5 and 6. The petitioner had lodged a report with the Police and on the basis of the said report, an offence came to be registered. Frantic efforts were taken by the Police for tracing the prime accused i.e. respondent no.5, who is alleged to have kidnapped Madhuri. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents indicates the various steps taken by them for tracing the prime accused as well as Madhuri. According to the respondents, all their efforts have been futile. The affidavit in reply concludes that every effort is being made for tracing the missing girl and for apprehending the prime 3 accused. 3. We are satisfied with the steps taken by the respondents for tracing Madhuri as well as the prime accused. We do not see any point in keeping this petition pending. This petition has been dismissed as against respondent no.5 on account of the fact that no steps had been taken by the petitioner for service of respondent no.5 who is said to be absconding. Respondent no.6 has filed an affidavit in which she has disclaimed any knowledge about kid-napping of Madhuri by respondent no.5. We, therefore, dismiss the petition with directions to the respondents to continue their efforts with the same zeal and enthusiasm which they have shown earlier. Writ petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. Notice of Habeas Corpus issued stands discharged. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEPT. 2010/cri.w.p.641-10