Nutan D. Sardessai, J.

Heard Shri S.G. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the petitioners who contended on inviting attention to the FIR that Section 341 IPC alone was a cognisable offence unlike the other offences being non-cognisable in nature. The complaint did not at all disclose the offence of wrongful confinement and therefore it was a fit case to quash and set aside the FIR No.62/2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. He placed reliance in Shripad Kulkarni and others v. State of Goa and another (Criminal Writ Petition No. 80/2013) and Joao C. Pereira and another v. State of Goa and others (CDJ 2016 BHC 607) to substantiate his case. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 contended that the investigation revealed that the CCTV footage to which a reference was made in the complaint did not give any details except the arrival of the car in question. The inmates of the house too were not forthcoming on the incident and hence left the matter to the Court for appropriate orders.

2. Shri S.G. Desai, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondent no.3 contended that the complainant was