S. P. Kukday, J. - (1.) Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties.
(2.) Heard both sides. The prosecutrix alleges that Shashikant Prabhakar Jondhale (Accused No. 1) violated her by giving promises of marriage. Twice he compelled her to submit for abortion. Finally, at the time of engagement ceremony the applicants demanded dowry of Rs. 5 lacs and broke the marriage for non-payment. The learned counsel has rightly pointed out that at the highest the applicants are concerned with the episode which has taken place at the time of engagement on1.5.2005. However, from the allegations it is clear that they have no concern with the commission of offence punishable under sections 376 and 313 of I. P. C. The learned A. P. P. concedes this position. The F. I. R. has to disclose the commission of offence by the applicant even at the prima facie stage. Accepting the allegations as they are, no offence is made out against the applicant. Thus, proceedings against the applicants can not be justified. The principles in respect of quashing of the F. I. R. are now well settled. Dealing with this point the Apex Court, in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Goloconda Linga Swamy and another, 2004 AIR(SCW) 4329 observed in para 12 of the report that ; " Though the FIR is not intended to be an encyclopedia of the background scenario, yet even skeletal features must disclose the commission of an offence. The position is not so in these cases. Therefore, the High Court's interference does not suffer from any legal infirmity" In the present case there is nothing to show that the applicants abetted commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 313 of I. P. C. The proceedings so far as they are concerned deserves to be quashed against the original accused Nos. 2 to 4. However, the proceedings against accused No. 1 Shashikant to continue.
(3.) Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Order accordingly.;