1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.637 OF 2009. Ajit Hariram Khubchanddani, Age 33 years, Occ.Business, R/o Karuna Apartment, Ulhasnagar, Dist. Thane. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. R.D. Reddy, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1. Mr.S.S.Gangakhedkar, advocate for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 20.08.2009. PER COURT 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges FIR lodged by the Respondent No.2 against him on the basis of which Crime No. 42/2009, has been registered at Zilla Peth Police 2 Station, Jalgaon. 2. The Respondent No.2 lodged FIR alleging that his maternal uncle - Dnyaneshwar Koli deals in the work of obtaining permits for business of country and foreign liquor. The Respondent No.2 is a student and was residing at the relevant time with his maternal uncle - Dnyaneshwar. He alleged that on 6.2.2009, he heard loud voices of talk and, therefore, from per storey he looked below, he heard that his maternal uncle (Dnyaneshwar) was calling Suresh and the petitioner was taking away the maternal uncle with the help of three (3) persons towards an Innova Car No.MH-43 V 5355. It is specifically stated in the FIR that those persons and the petitioner were man-handling, pulling and pushing said Dnyaneshwar. Thus, they forcibly took him away in the Car vehicle and, therefore, the mother and wife of said Dnyaneshwar started crying. The Respondent No.2 informed his another maternal uncle by name Ramchandra and thereafter search was taken to find out the car vehicle. They had gone to Ulhasnagar, where it was 3 suspected that said Dnyaneshwar Koli was taken away. It appears that subsequently Dnyaneshwar Koli gave a statement before Police Officer that he was forcibly taken away by the petitioners and others with a view to ask him to pay back the advance amount obtained by him or to do the work of the business permit for transfer of liquor vending license. 3. On going through the investigation papers, it prima facie appears that there is evidence to infer complicity of the petitioner regarding his act of taking away said Dnyaneshwar by use of force. It prima facie appears that said Dnyaneshwar was taken to Ulhasnagar and was boarded in a hotel at Washi under surveillance of the petitioner. It appears that there was an agreement between himself and the petitioner regarding transfer of liquor vending license of a shop. It was agreed that amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand) would be paid as price of the liquor vending shop. The petitioner had paid advance of Rs.22,00,000/- (Rupees twenty two lacs) but the license was not transferred in his 4 name and, therefore, he was asking for refund of the amount. Thus, it prima facie appears that said Dnyaneshwar was abducted with a view to recover the money or to ensure immediate action for transfer of the liquor vending license in favour of the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere abduction by itself is not a punishable offence and, therefore, the FIR needs to be quashed. I do not agree. The investigation is in progress. The nature of offence is yet to be determined on the basis of the fact situation which would be clear after the investigation is completed. It is prima facie clear that the offence alleged against the petitioner may come within the ambit of Section 365 and Section 387 read with Section 511 of the I.P. Code. In any case, when there is prima facie evidence regarding forcible taking away of the victim i.e. Dnyaneshwar Koli, the FIR can not be quashed only because some defences are available to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, 5 the petition is dismissed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crwp63709