1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2787/2009. 1) Roshansing s/o Babusing Mali and another - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.Murar V.Deshpande, Advocate for Applicants; Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned Counsel the parties extensively. 2) Learned APP submits that there is non- compliance of order of this Court as the accused has not attended the three dates mentioned in the earlier directions dated 25.8.2009, same is disputed by Mr. Deshpande. 3) Learned APP informs, that statement of Sagar was not recorded and it is to be recorded. 2 However, there is newspaper item, a photograph flashing abducted Sagar with the police authorities and they made inquiry with him. In the report, itself police submit that Sagar came before them, however, he was way-ward and wavering in his answer. The abducted Sagar was seen moving in Indica car owned by the applicant – Roshansingh Mali. 4) The matter revolves to abduction of Sagar Bandiwadekar, based on elder brother’s report giving rise to the F.I.R.No.185/2009 dated 28.6.2009 registered at Nanded (Rural) Police Station for the offence under Section 364 r/w 34 of IPC. 5) There is long drawn history and chain of events in the short spell of period between the parties. However, for the present order, it need not be gone and reproduced. The fact remains, the abducted person Sagar is available, his authenticity is verified, statement of his brothers and other relations recorded. In the situation, I do not see any reason to continue 3 with the proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. lodged against the present applicant/accused, as it is apparently abuse of process and continuing the same will be causing humiliation, harassment to the applicant/accused – Roshansing. The allegations made in the F.I.R. are patently absurd and inherently improbable. The F.I.R. does not disclose commission of offence. Consequently, the F.I.R.185/2009 dated 28.6.2009 in so far as it relates to applicants herein is quashed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran2787.09