V. D. GYANI, J, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under section 482, Cr. P. C. the petitioners pray for quashing of the order dated 14. 7. 1990, passed by the 1st Addi. Sessions Judge, Ratlam, in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1990, thereby framing charge under section 366/34, I. P. C. against the petitioners. ( 2 ) BEFORE taking up the grounds challenging the framing of charge, it would not be out of place to record a few basic facts giving rise to the prosecution: Mt. Gangabai, a widow, on 15. 5. 1989 lodged a report with the police complaining that her daughter Lilabai, aged about 20 years (as given in the F. I. R) was forcibly taken away -from a well by her uncle Dhulsingh 5/0 Rama and Narsingh 5/0 Rama, both residents of village Aligarh in district Ratlam. It is also to be found in the F. I. R. that Lilabai was married to Balusingh of village Somchiri. It was a customary matrimonial alliance, known as NA TRA, which was witnessed by Fatta and Rama Gujar. ( 3 ) ON the basis of this report a case under Section 366, I. P. C was registered at police station Tal, and ipvestigated. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against as many as fourteen persons, and charges as stated above were framed against them. ( 4 ) OUT of fourteen, nine accused have come to this Court praying for quashing of the charge on the grounds that even if the allegations as made in the charge-sheet are taken as true and allowed to go unrebutted, yet no offence, as charged or for that matter any offence, is disclosed against the petitioners. ( 5 ) IT is for this reason that Shri Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that pending prosecution against the petitioners be quashed as a whole and not merely the charge as framed. ( 6 ) THE law on the point if well-settled. If F. I. R. does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the F. I. R. can itself be quashed. But in the instant case, the case has gone fm; ahead of that stage. ( 6 ) THE law on the point if well-settled. If F. I. R. does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the F. I. R. can itself be quashed. But in the instant case, the case has gone fm; ahead of that stage. Petitioners counsel, however, urged that taking the statements of all the witnesses together and there are four witnesses, Gangabai lodged the F. I. R. , on being informed by Rama, her daughter Lilabai and the other two witnesses, Rama and Fatta. Gangabai acquired knowledge from Rama and Rama in his statement specifically refers to only three persons, namely, Narsingh, Dhulsingh and Balu. Similarly, Patta in his statement recorded under Sec. 161, Cr. P. C. , has referred to Narsingh and Dhulsingh, uncles of prosecutrix Lilabai and Balu, to whom she was given in NA TRA. The other man referred to in his statement is Rama. Lilabai statement reveals the names of two more persons, Bhuwan and Parvat Singh, apart from the above named Narsingh, Dhulsingh and Balu. ( 7 ) IT may be noted that these five persons named by the above named witnesses are not petitioners before this Court. The incident of forcible abduction of Lilabai is dated 15. 5. 1989. She is said to have been abducted by Narsingh, Dhulsingh and Balu, while she was returning from the field. Although she was recovered from the custody of Balu on 23. 10. 1989, her statement under Sec. 161, Cr. P. C. , was recorded a month later oil 23. 11. 1989. ( 8 ) IT is not the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence against the petitioners, the moot question that arises for consideration is the total lack of evidence, not even a bald reference to the petitioners, much less any incriminating imputation made by any of the above-named witnesses. It is for this reason that interference is called for. ( 9 ) AT this stage, since the trial in respect of the accused other than the present petitioners, is yet to proceed, it would not be proper and -desirable to make any comments as regards the evidence collected in the case. But so far as the present petitioners are concerned, the submissions made by their counsel cannot also be lightly brushed aside. But so far as the present petitioners are concerned, the submissions made by their counsel cannot also be lightly brushed aside. ( 10 ) SHRI Desai, learned Penal Lawyer appearing for the State, referring to an entry dated 8. 12. 1989, made in the case-diary, submitted that Lilabais statement was got recorded under Sec. 164, Cr. P. C. and petitioners names have emerged thereafter. ( 11 ) HERE again, without commenting on the statement as such, suffice it to note, as has been pointed out by the Supreme Court, the. very fact that the statements of the prosecutrix were required to be recorded u/s. 164, Cr. P. C. , goes to show that there was a stage during the course of investigation when the investigating agency had some doubt about the statement made by the witness. This does not add in any manner to the strength of the prosecution case, so far as the petitioners are concerned. Accusation against the petitioners is one of abetting-the offence of abduction. ( 12 ) SECTION 107,ipc, which defines abetment as comprising:a) instigation to commit the offence, b) engaging in conspiracy to commit the offence, and c) aiding the commission of an offence. Abetment thus necessarily means some active suggestion or support to the commission of the offence. The word instigate literally means to goad, urge forward provoke, incite, or encourage to do an act and a person is said to instigate another when he actively suggests or stimulates him to the act by any means, or language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. Although it is not necessary that the instigation should be only in words and may not be by conduct, but there has to be at least the allegation of instigation, either by words or by conduct and no such allegation is to be found as against the petitioners in the recorded statements of the above-named witnesses. Any facility afforded to the doing of an act is, under the Explanation 2, equivalent to aiding the doing of the act. Any facility afforded to the doing of an act is, under the Explanation 2, equivalent to aiding the doing of the act. The essential ingredients of the offence of a betment by aid are: a) The act or omission which constitute the aid must have beell done intentionally; b) The aid must be by a positive act or an illegal omission; c) The aid must have been given either prior to or at the time of the commission of the offence abetted; d) The aid must have been given for the purpose of facilitating the commission of the offence; and e) The aid must in fact have facilitated, it. ( 13 ) NOW, these ingredients cannot be searched in vacume, they can only be applied and tested on the allegations as made, which unfortunately, there is none. It may also be noted that even from circumstances abetment can be inferred, but those circumstances also do not find place, nor indicated. ( 14 ) SHRI Desai, placing reliance on a very recent decisions of the Supreme Court in Radheshyam v. Kunj Behari, urged that no interference under Section 482, Cr. P. C. can be resorted to ( 15 ) AS has already been noted above, it is not for any inefficiency or evidence, but for total lack thereof that the power under Sec. 482,cr. P. C. is invoked. The nature of the grounds, as enumerated in para 5 of the judgment in Radheshyams case (supra) are being availed of in the instant case. It is not by any maticulous appreciation of evidence, but on more reading of the statements recorded under Sec. 161, Cr. P. C. , of the witnesses named above, who do not even refer to the present petitioners, either by name or by some identifiable description, yet they are being sought to be roped in with the aid of Section 109, IPC. Both these authorities relied upon by the learned counsel, with respect, are not attracted to the facts of the present case. ( 16 ) THE case of State of U. P. v. Man Mohan etc. Both these authorities relied upon by the learned counsel, with respect, are not attracted to the facts of the present case. ( 16 ) THE case of State of U. P. v. Man Mohan etc. was a case under the Essential Commodities Act and the trial court had formed an opinion that there were grounds to presume that the accused hadcommitted the offence; whereas the present case relates to abetment- of an offence under Sec. 366, IPC, wherein as many as fourteen persons are being sought to be implicated. The law relating to abetment has already been discussed above and in the light of the said discussion and accepting the total evidence, as it is, and allowing it to go unrebutted, yet the essential ingredients constituting abetment on the part of the petitioners cannot be said to have been made out. Reading the statements, which have been discussed above, as a whole it would be clear that there is absolutely no allegation whatsoever against the petitioners and the Supreme Court in State of W. B. v. Swapan K. Gupta and Ors. has very categorically held that, where the First Information Report does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence, the High Court is justified in quashing the investigation, Of course, this power, as of necessity, is to be very sparingly exercised. Reading and re-reading of the statements, there is not a slightest hint against the petitioners. ( 17 ) IN Madhavrao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Angre, the Supreme Court has gone a step ahead in considering the chance of ultimate conviction on the basis of material. Although in the instant case, no such situation arises, but the relevant part of the said judgment can be quoted with advantage: The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. ( 18 ) FOR the foregoing reasons this petition succeeds and is allowed. The prosecution as such, so for as it relates to the present petitioners, deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed, irrespective of the stage the trial had reached. Petition allowed. .