JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition has filed against the order dated 10.8.2006 whereby cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and revision petition has also been dismissed. 2. The short facts of the case, according to the petition, are that the petitioner was posted as junior Engineer in P.H.D. and deceased Bhupendra Saini was working as Assistant in the office. The dead body of Bhupendra was recovered from a well on 5.10.2003, which was taken to the hospital and an inquiry was ordered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., after that F.I.R. No. 19/2004 was registered. After investigation, the police filed Final Report, which was sent to the concerned Magistrate. Notice was given to informant Chandrabhan, who did not submit any protest petition. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. against which a revision petition was filed, which was also dismissed. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 4. The first contention of the present petitioner is that the learned Magistrate has passed its order taking cognizance on the statements, which were recorded during the inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and reliance could not be placed on the above, which was collected during the inquest report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and thus the order taking cognizance is perverse and liable to be quashed. He has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of Radha Molian Singh @ Lal Sahed & Ors. v. State of U.P., 2006 (1) Crimes 183 (SC) , wherein it has been held as under : "The language of the aforesaid statutory provision is plain and simple and there is no ambiguity therein. An investigation under Section 174 is limited in scope and is confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death. It is concerned with discovering whether in a given case the death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal or caused by animal and in what manner or by what weapon or instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. It is for this limited purpose of the case are summoned and examined under Section 175. The details of the overt acts are not necessary to be recorded in the inquest report. It is for this limited purpose of the case are summoned and examined under Section 175. The details of the overt acts are not necessary to be recorded in the inquest report. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted or who are the witnesses of the assault is foreign to the ambit and scope of proceedings under Section 171. Neither in practice nor in law it is necessary for the person holding the inquest to mention all these details. 5. Similar view has been taken in the judgment delivered in the case of Meera Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2002 (2) WLN 365 , wherein it has been held as under: "The submission made by Mr. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General that F.I.R. cannot be lodged by the petitioner in view of pendency of the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code is preposterous for the reason that object of the proceedings under Section 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death or if so, what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted, is foreign to the ambit and scope of the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code." 6. Looking at the above legal position, it is revealed that scope of proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is limited one and question regarding details as to how the deceased was assaulted and who has assaulted him are foreign to the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and hence the order of the trial Court, which was based on the statement recorded under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is perverse and illegal and on this count alone, it is liable to be quashed. 7. The next contention of the present petitioner is that Ramveer Singh, ASI was not competent to recommend for lodging F.I.R. and it is in contravention of Section 154 Cr.P.C. and he has places reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of Mohindro v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2001 Cr LR (SC) 132 . 7. The next contention of the present petitioner is that Ramveer Singh, ASI was not competent to recommend for lodging F.I.R. and it is in contravention of Section 154 Cr.P.C. and he has places reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of Mohindro v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2001 Cr LR (SC) 132 . In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that without registering the case, inquiry cannot be conducted and hence directions were issued to register a case. 8. In the present case, a first information report was lodge at the Police Station, Mathura Gate, Bharatpur by the brother of the deceased and hence there is no infirmity or perversity in lodging the F.I.R. and hence the contention of the petitioner in unacceptable. 9. The other contention of the present petitioner is that when final report has been given by the police, the learned Magistrate ought to have proceeded under Sections 200 and 200 Cr.P.C. and without examining the witnesses on oath, the learned Magistrate committed jurisdictional error in passing impugned order. 10. There is no force in the above argument. Section 190 Cr. P.C., which empowers the Magistrate to take cognizance reads as under : "190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance to inquire into or try." 11. A bare perusal of the above provision goes to show that the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance upon a police report. Section 173 deals with the report of police officers on completion of investigation, which reads as follows : "173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.-(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. A bare perusal of the above provision goes to show that the Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance upon a police report. Section 173 deals with the report of police officers on completion of investigation, which reads as follows : "173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.-(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the Officer in-charge of the Police Station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom; (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he has been released on his bond and if so, whether with or without sureties; (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. (ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given. (3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under Section 158, the report, shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that offer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the Police Station to make further investigation. (4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit. (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report- (a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the person whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses. (6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request. (7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5). (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the Officer in-charge of the Police Station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded tinder sub-section (2)" 12. There is no distinction under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in negative or positive report and hence under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is competent to take cognizance upon a police report, which is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and it is was not obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to proceed under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order of the. trial Court on this count. 13. The other contention of the present petitioner is that the petitioner was Junior Engineer and he was not responsible to disburse the salary of the deceased and there is no direct link with the suicide and any act or omission on the part of the present petitioner. The letter dated 22.5.2002, which was written to the Assistant Engineer by the deceased was also placed on record in which it has been stated that the deceased has refused to work at the house of petitioner and hence he was marked absent and complaint has been filed to the Assistant Engineer in this regard. The letter dated 22.5.2002, which was written to the Assistant Engineer by the deceased was also placed on record in which it has been stated that the deceased has refused to work at the house of petitioner and hence he was marked absent and complaint has been filed to the Assistant Engineer in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if evidence taken on the face value, does not constitute offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and he has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2010 (4) CCC (SC) 68 , wherein it has been held that the Courts have to be extremely careful in the prosecution under Section 306 I.P.C. as the main person is not available for cross-examination by the accused. Unless, therefore there is specific allegation and material of definite nature, it would be hazardous to ask the accused to face trial. In the present case, there is no nexus between the so called suicide and the action of the accused-petitioner. Rather, there is no act or omission alleged in the present case, which has been done by the present petitioner. The application, which has been written by the deceased, was also addressed to the Assistant Engineer, which goes to show that the present petitioner has nothing to do with disbursement of salary to the deceased and he was not in any way connected with the matter of deducting salary or any part of it. Hence in the present case, ingredients of abetment are totally absent and looking at the totality of the material on record, it will lead to conclusion that the present petitioner was not in any way responsible for the death of deceased. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of AK Chaudhari & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2006 (3) Crimes 116 , wherein it was held as under : "In view of the above, it appears that the ingredients for abetment for suicide would be satisfied only if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/ incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories, one normally where the deceased is having sentimental tie or physical relations with the accused and second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in official capacity. In case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the utterance of the hot exchange of words may result into psychological immediate imbalance. Consequently creating situation of depression, loss of charm in the life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In case of second category, the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would to discharge the obligation as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship and the reason being the different conduct of the parties for maintenance of the relation. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules and regulations. Of course, for meeting with the requirement for ingredients of abetment to suicide, the provisions of the I.P.C. are the same, but for the purpose of examination on the aspects of abetment to commit suicide or incitement/encouragement to suicide, it may have some relevance. Since, in the present case this Court is not concerned with the matter of abetment to suicide, where the deceased or the accused had the relations covered in the first category, no further discussion may be required in this regard to that extent. Since, in the present case this Court is not concerned with the matter of abetment to suicide, where the deceased or the accused had the relations covered in the first category, no further discussion may be required in this regard to that extent. However, in case where the allegations for abetment of suicide committed by the deceased falling in second category are concerned, the strict interpretation is called for, otherwise it may result into damaging the discipline of any institution or organisation or department, which may consequently result into creating a situation against national interest for which the expectation would be the strict discipline and the rule of law only and nothing else." 15. Looking at the above legal and factual position, there is no evidence or any-ingredient of abetment found in the present case and hence continuation of proceedings against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are totally misconceived and abuse of process of law. 16. In view of the above, this petition is liable to be allowed and the same is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the proceedings in Case No. 415/2006, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Bharatpur are quashed.Petition allowed. *******