JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.2 of 2020, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same as against this petitioners.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the FIR in Crime No.2 of 2020, on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same, as against the petitioners herein. 2. The petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A4 in Crime No.2 of 2020, on the file of the first respondent police. The 2nd respondent herein is the defacto complainant to the said FIR, made allegation as against the petitioners, as they are abducting one Mayavan, who is the son born to the 1st and 2nd petitioners, who committed the offence under Sections 417, 313, 376 r/w 109 of IPC. In the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, she narrated the occurrence stating that the 1st accused Mayavan, who is son of the 1st and 2nd petitioners, is a distant relative to the 2nd respondent. Before two years from the date of registering the FIR, she met the said Mayavan in Palani and they developed intimacy with each other. 3. Resultantly, the said Mayavan invited the 2nd respondent to the quarters in which he was staying. Believing the words of the said Mayavan, the 2nd respondent went to the house of the said Mayavan in which, the 2nd respondent made intercourse with the said Mayavan. Due to which, she has conceived and after knowing the same, the said Mayavan compelled the 2nd respondent to take some tablets, which is for aborting the fetus. When at the time, the 2nd respondent attempted to commit suicide, she was saved by her parents. When the act of the said Mayavan was complained to the petitioners, the petitioners instead of supporting the 2nd respondent told that since the said Mayavan is a male, in general, he would be like that and further told that they have to careful enough to look after the girl. Accordingly, the said Mayavan deceived the 2nd respondent and made intercourse frequently. 4. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the FIR, there is no specific overt act against these petitioners. Utmost, they committed an offence under Section 109 IPC. Accordingly, the said Mayavan deceived the 2nd respondent and made intercourse frequently. 4. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that in the FIR, there is no specific overt act against these petitioners. Utmost, they committed an offence under Section 109 IPC. In general, no one would induce any family members to do such heinous offence. Only an inducement for the commission of an offence or intensively abetting to do any work is defined under Section 107 IPC., and therefore, the averments set out in the FIR do not disclose prima facie case attracting Section 109 of IPC. According to him, the petitioners have not committed any offence, as cited in the FIR and they are all ignorance about the alleged incident. Therefore, he prayed to quash the FIR., as against the petitioners herein. 5. On a careful reading of the averments made in the FIR, it is true that at any point of time, the petitioners abetted the said Mayavan to commit a particular wrong. In this regard, it is relevant and useful to see the Judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court in M.Mohan Vs. State reported in ( 2011 (3) SCC 626 ) wherein, it has been held as follows:- “41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh Kumar has examined different shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as under:- 20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. In the said case this court came to the conclusion that there is no evidence and material available on record wherefrom an inference of the accused-appellant having abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant's wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.” 6. Further, in the Judgment reported in Kulwant Singh @ Kulbansh Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2007 15 SCC 670), our Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- “11. Where a person aids and abets the perpetrator of a crime at the very time the crime is committed, he is a principal of the second degree and section 109 applies. But mere failure to prevent the commission of an offence is not by itself an abetment of that offence. Considering the definition in Section 109 strictly, the instigation must have reference to the thing that was done and not to the thing that was likely to have been done by the person who is instigated. It is only if this condition is fulfilled that a person can be guilty of abetment by instigation. Section 109 is attracted even if the abettor is not present when the offence abetted is committed provided that he had instigated the commission of the offence or has engaged with one or more other persons in a conspiracy to commit an offence and pursuant to the conspiracy some act or illegal omission takes place or has intentionally induced the commission of an offence by an act or illegal omission. In the absence of direct involvement, conviction for abetment is not sustainable.” 7. More than that, in the Judgment in Cyriac Vs. Sub Inspector of Police, Kaduthuruthy reported in (2005 CRL. L.J. 4322), the High Court of Kerala has held as follows:- “To constitute `instigation', a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other, by goading or urging forward. Going by the dictionary meaning (vide Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, Sixth Edition) the word `goad' means, `keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts.' So also, `urge' means ` to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly in a particular direction especially by pushing or forcing' such person. Going by the dictionary meaning (vide Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, Sixth Edition) the word `goad' means, `keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts.' So also, `urge' means ` to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly in a particular direction especially by pushing or forcing' such person. `Urge forward' means in this context, `urge' a person `forward'. Thus, a person who instigates another has `to goad or urge forward' the latter, with intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the latter. A close, combined reading of the meaning of the word `instigation' with the meaning of the terms `goad' and `urge' will reveal that `instigation' involves two things. One is a physical act or omission, while the other is a mental act. The physical act or omission involved in `instigation' is, `goading or urging forward' another. Such physical act of goading can be committed either by words or deed, as the meaning of the word suggests. `Goading' can be committed also by any other willful conduct--may be, by even an adamant silence. Thus, by words, deeds willful omission or wilful silence also, one can goad a person i.e., keep irritating or annoying a person until he reacts. So also, the physical act of `urging forward' or `instigation' involves doing of an act by strongly advising, persuading to make a person do something or by pushing or forcing a person in order to make him move more quickly in a forward direction. Thus, both the physical acts in `goading or urging forward' can be committed by doing some act, either verbal or physical or even by a willful omission or conduct. But, apart from such physical act or omission, one more factor has to be established to constitute `instigation'. That is a mental act. While a person instigates another by the act of `goading or urging forward', such person must also have, the intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other. Such intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other is an essential factor in `instigation'. A person can be said to have instigated another, if such person, with intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the latter to do an act, has goaded or urged forward the other person.” 8. Such intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other is an essential factor in `instigation'. A person can be said to have instigated another, if such person, with intention to provoke, incite, urge or encourage the latter to do an act, has goaded or urged forward the other person.” 8. Therefore, on applying the principles set out in the earlier Judgments referred above, here it is a case registered under Sections 417, 313, 376 r/w 109 of IPC. For the said offences, the only allegations levelled against the petitioners is that when the act of the first accused was complained to the petitioners, the petitioners had not supported the 2nd respondent by saying that the 1st accused, being the male he would be like that. The said circumstances narrated that the 2nd respondent do not disclose any cognizable offence, as against the petitioners and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners squarely falls on the exception 7 of the Bajanlal's case and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed. 9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed the FIR in Crime No.2 of 2020, on the file of the 1st respondent Police, registered as against the petitioners, is hereby quashed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.