JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel on both the sides and perused the record. 2. On 04.04.2017, Mohd Farooq, who is petitioner in HCP No. 23/2017 and respondent No. 4 in 561-A No. 214/2017, lodged a written information at Police Station, Thanamandi informing that his wife, Haseena Kousar, age 25 years, has been abducted by one Mohd. Kabir with the connivance of seven others and detained at some unknown places with the intention of committing rape on her. On this report, police has registered FIR No. 27/2017 under Section 366 read with section 109 RPC. 3. In the petition under section 561-A the accused, other than Mohd. Kabir, seek quashing of FIR No. 27/2017 on the ground that they have no role in the abduction of the wife of the informant. It is contended that they are family members of Mohd Kabir and have been roped in just to harass and humiliate them. While not denying the allegation of kidnapping, the petitioners have contended that the report filed by informant indicates that the married lady of more than 25 years has eloped with the accused voluntarily and the report against the petitioners is baseless, false and calculated to harass them. 4. In the Habeas Corpus Petition, the petitioner (informant) Mohd. Farooq, seeks a direction to the police authorities, respondent Nos. 2 to 4, to recover his wife and to produce her before this Court. He further seeks handing over the custody of his wife to him. 5. In the status report furnished by the SHO, Police Station Thanamandi, it is stated that after registration of the FIR inter-alia a massive combing operation was launched to trace the prosecutrix. Police has also carried out raids at number of places in order to recover her but she could not be recovered. 6. The position, thus, arising is that police is investigating the case relating to the abduction of the wife of the informant. Having regard to the accusation in the report lodged by the informant and the fact that the lady has been kidnapped or has voluntarily gone with one of the accused, I find no sufficient ground for quashing the FIR qua any of the petitioners (accused) inasmuch as it is neither plausible nor justified to take a view at this stage that FIR does not disclose the commission of offence by any one of them. 7. 7. Likewise, since investigation in the case is going on and one of the important aspects of the investigation would be to trace the lady so that the truth or otherwise allegation of abduction is ascertained, necessity of issuing warrant for her recovery and production before the Court does not arise. 8. Viewed thus, both these petitions are dismissed. Interim directions whatsoever, shall stand withdrawn.