V.D. Gyani, J. -- 1. By this petition under section 482, CrPC the petitioners pray for quashing for the order dated 14.7.1990, passed by the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam, in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1990, thereby framing charge under section 366/34 IPC 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 FIR) was forcibly taken away from a well by her uncle Dhulsingh s/o Rama and Narsingh s/o Rama, both residents of village Aligarh in district Ratlam. It is also to be found in the FIR that Lilabai was married to Balusingh of village Somchiri. It was a customary matrimonial alliance, known as NATRA, which was witnessed by Fatta and Rama Gujar.

3. On the basis of this report a case under section 366 IPC was registered at police station Tal, and investigated. 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 un-rebutted, 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 is well-settled. If FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, the FIR can itself be quashed. But in the instant case, the case has gone tar 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 FIR, 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, Fatta in his statement recorded under section 161 CrPC, has referred to Narsingh and Dhulsingh, uncles of prosecutrix Lilabai and Balu, to whom she was given in NATRA. The other man referred to in his statement is Rama. Lilabai's statement reveals the names of two more persons" Bhuwan and Parvatsingh, 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 15.5.89. She is said to have been abducted by Narsingh, Dhulsingh & Balu, while she was returning from the field. Although she was recovered from the custody of Balu on 23.10.89, her statement under section 161 CrPC was recorded a month later on 23.11.89.

8. It is not the question of sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence against the petitioner, 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.

10. Shri Desai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, referring to an entry dated 8.12.09, made in the case-diary, submitted that Lilabai's statement was