( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 202 OF 2009 Akhil s/o Ahmedoddin Syed, r/O Pension Pura, Hingoli, Tq. and Dist. Hingoli. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Hingoli. 2. Lilabai w/o Madhukar Chaudhari, R/o Jain Galli, Hingoli. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. H.I. Pathan, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. R.D. Reddy, APP for the respondent No.1/State. None for respondent No. 2. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 21st August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the ( 2 ) petitioner and learned A.P.P. 2. The petitioner seeks to challenge the F.I.R. in Crime No. 6/2009 registered at Hingoli Police Station for offences punishable under section 363, 506 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code against him. 3. No reply-affidavit is filed. The learned APP, however, made available the investigation papers for perusal of this Court during course of hearing. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP. 5. Long and short of the prosecution case is that on 30th December, 2008, daughter of the complainant, by name Poonam, was found missing. She learnt that her daughter was kidnapped by Syed Riyazoddin after allurement of marriage. The FIR purports to show that the complainant – Smt. Lilabai gathered such information on 15th January, 2009. She alleged that on 7th January, 2009, she had gone to make inquiry with the petitioner ( 3 ) but he had threatened her to beat. The petitioner is younger brother of Syed Riyazoddin, who allegedly took away said Poonam. It appears that said Poonam was aged about 20 years at the relevant time as the birth-date is shown to be 27th August, 1988. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hingoli has issued certificate about her age. Obviously, she was not a minor under 18 years of age at the relevant time. It further appears that she and main accused Syed Riyazoddin have performed marriage. The petitioner is roped in on the allegation that when inquiry was made with him, then he had passed a threat to assault the complainant. There is absolutely no evidence to infer that he participated in the alleged act of kidnapping/abduction and could have been roped in with aid of section 109 of the I.P. Code. In the absence of any tangible material, the FIR to the extent of complicity of the petitioner is unsustainable. He cannot be even remotely charged with the offences of alleged kidnapping or abduction of said Poonam. Hence, the FIR to the extent of involvement of the petitioner will have to be quashed. ( 4 ) 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR to the extent of involvement of the petitioner is quashed. The Rule is made absolute accordingly. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIWP202-09