ORDER : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. The petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) quashing/setting aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Bariatu P.S. Case No. 189 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 379 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. 2. The prosecution case as per the First Information Report is that on 13.07.2022 at about 11.15 a.m. the informant Ravi Shankar Prasad was assaulted near Joda Talab Bariatu, Ranchi, while he had stopped his bike to attend nature’s call. Suddenly, a Bolero, a white car, and a bike arrived. The accused Nitesh Soni, Jitesh Soni, Ajay Verma and Rakesh [all relatives of his wife Nidhi Kumari Soni (petitioner)] forcibly abducted him, assaulted him with kicks, fists, and iron rods, and looted his gold chain and rings. He sustained serious injuries on both his ears, head, right cheek and shoulder. He was then taken to the flat of Renu Kashyap at Sant Tulsi Apartment, Bariatu. The petitioner had also filed a case under Section 498A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against the informant. At the apartment the assault continued in the presence of Renu Kashyap and her son, who were also beaten. The accused persons also recorded the incident on video. When the police arrived, the accused fled, vandalized Renu Kashyap’s house, and took away valuable belongings. It is alleged that the assault was a conspiracy by the petitioner, her mother Sunita Soni, brother Nitesh Soni, Jitesh Soni, Ajay Verma and 8-10 other persons to get informant’s bail rejected. The informant was admitted to RIMS, Ranchi, on the same day for medical treatment. It is alleged that earlier also these people had tried to kill or kidnap the informant and on his application a case under Section 107 was registered in Bariatu Police Station and on giving an application to the Chief Minister, Director General of Police, Jharkhand, when Bariatu Police Station investigated, his statement was found to be true. The petitioner had already filed a case against the informant under Section 498A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and under the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Act to usurp his property. A settlement was made after eight years by taking a lot of money. The petitioner had already filed a case against the informant under Section 498A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and under the Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste Act to usurp his property. A settlement was made after eight years by taking a lot of money. Thereafter for one year, a case under Section 498A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE has been filed by the petitioner with the intention of putting the informant, his sister and brother-in-law in jail by using Renu Kashyap as pawn. 3. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and is the wife of the informant. She was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. Counsel submits that the informant had intimate relation with Renu Kashyap which the petitioner objected to but the informant did not listen. The petitioner had lodged Kotwali P.S. Case No. 172 of 2021 in this regard. Learned counsel contends that the Investigation officer and respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have not properly investigated the case and are supporting the informant. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondents submitted that the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and devoid of any merit. Learned counsel argues that the case of the informant has been found to be true during the course of investigation and supervision of this case, on the basis of statements of the informant and the witnesses, injury report and evidence collected. The informant sustained grievous injuries on chest and shoulder. Further, the petitioner has been found to be absconding and evading her arrest. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued that against one accused the First Information Report cannot be quashed and if the First Information Report is to be quashed, it has to be quashed as a whole and there cannot be piece-meal quashing. 5. I have gone through the First Information Report. It has been alleged by the informant that on 13.07.2022 at about 11.15 a.m., he was abducted by the accused persons and taken to the flat of Renu Kashyap, where he was assaulted and sustained grievous injury. It is further alleged that his personal belongings were also taken away. 6. Admittedly, this petitioner is the wife of the informant and there is matrimonial dispute amongst them for which several cases were pending. It is further alleged that his personal belongings were also taken away. 6. Admittedly, this petitioner is the wife of the informant and there is matrimonial dispute amongst them for which several cases were pending. From the allegations in the First Information Report, it transpires that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. There are two places of occurrence in this case. Petitioner was not there in the vehicle nor was present at the time of alleged kidnapping. Thus, admittedly she has not taken part in the kidnapping of the informant. The second place of occurrence is the house of Renu Kashyap, where it has been alleged that the informant was assaulted by the accused persons. Admittedly, this petitioner was also not present there. Thus, it is an admitted case that the petitioner was not present at both the places of occurrence. 7. Since the petitioner was not present at the time and place of occurrence, the offences under Sections 341 , 323, 325, 307, 379 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE are not attracted against the petitioner, as admittedly no overt act has been alleged against her. 8. So far as Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is concerned, the same deals with the acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. There must be two ingredients for convicting a person with the aid of Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Firstly, there must be a common intention and secondly, there must be participation by the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Rajasthan versus Shobha Ram reported in (2013) 14 SCC 732 , at paragraph 9 thereof, has observed as under: - 9. A perusal of Section 34 IPC would clearly indicate that there must be two ingredients for convicting a person with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Firstly, there must be a common intentnion and secondly, there must be participation by the accused persons in furtherance of the common intention. If the common intention is proved, it may not be necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must be arising out of the same common intention in order to attract the provision. If the common intention is proved, it may not be necessary that the acts of the several persons charged with commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identically similar. The acts may be different in character, but must be arising out of the same common intention in order to attract the provision. The said principle is reiterated in a three-Judge Bench decision in Suresh v. State of U.P. [( 2001 3 SCC 673 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 601] and Ramaswami Ayyangar versus State of T.N. [ (1976) 3 SCC 779 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 518], SCC p. 783, para 12) “12. … The acts committed by different confederates in the criminal action may be different but all must in one way or the other participate and engage in the criminal enterprise, for instance, one may only stand guard to prevent any person coming to the relief of the victim, or may otherwise facilitate the [commission of crime]. Such a person also commits an ‘act’ as much as his co-participants actually committing the planned crime.” In the case of an offence involving physical violence, the person who instigates or aids the commission of the crime must be physically present and such presence of those who in one way or the other facilitate the execution of the common design, in itself tentamount to actual participation in the “criminal act”. 10. Looking to aforesaid guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the context of the present case, from the First Information Report, I find no ingredients so as to attract the offence under Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE so far as the petitioner is concerned. As observed earlier, in the entire First Information Report, neither there is any allegation showing common intention of the petitioner with other accused persons nor is there an allegation that the petitioner was physically present at the place of occurrence, thus, there was no participation by the petitioner in furtherance of the common intention also. Thus, Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not applicable. It needs to be noted that this is not a case under Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE also, as there is no material to come to conclusion that any conspiracy was hatched by this petitioner. 11. Thus, Section 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE is not applicable. It needs to be noted that this is not a case under Section 120B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE also, as there is no material to come to conclusion that any conspiracy was hatched by this petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that against one accused the First Information Report cannot be quashed and if the First Information Report is to be quashed, it has to be quashed as a whole and there cannot be piece-meal quashing. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Salhotra versus State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2018) 12 SCC 391 : 2017 SCC OnLine SC 636 at paragraph 3 thereof has held as under: - 3. We have taken into account the facts of the matter in question as it appears to us that no cognizable offence is made out against the appellants herein. The High Court was wrong in holding that the FIR cannot be quashed in part and it ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellants herein cannot be allowed to suffer on the basis of the complaint filed by Respondent 2 herein only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. It is pertinent to note that the learned Magistrate has opined that no offence is made out against Co-accused 2, 3, 4 and 6 prima facie. According to us, the FIR in question filed against the appellants herein by Respondent 2 is only an afterthought with the sole intention to pressurize the appellants not to prosecute their criminal complaint filed by them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 13. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the First Information Report qua few of the accused. Issue raised by the counsel for the respondents is, thus, settled. It is now settled that First Information Report qua some of the accused can be quashed if no offence is made out against them. 14. In this case also, there is no material against this petitioner. She has been made an accused only because of matrimonial disputes between the parties. 15. In view of what has been held and observed above, I find no element of criminality attributable to the petitioner so as to prosecute her for the offences as alleged. 14. In this case also, there is no material against this petitioner. She has been made an accused only because of matrimonial disputes between the parties. 15. In view of what has been held and observed above, I find no element of criminality attributable to the petitioner so as to prosecute her for the offences as alleged. Thus, there being no material to make out a prima facie case as against the petitioner for the offences as alleged, I am inclined to allow this Criminal Writ Petition. The First Information Report, being Bariatu P.S. Case No. 189 of 2022, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed. 15. This Criminal Writ Petition stands allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.