JUDGMENT : The short point involved in this matter is, as to whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate while holding an inquiry in relation to the death of one Bhaiya alias Pawan under Sec. 176 (1-A) of Cr.P.C. can conclude that the accused are guilty of the offence alleged. 2. In this case, after holding an inquiry un­der Sec. 176 (1-A) Cr.P.C. in relation to the death of Bhaiya alias Pawan who appears to have been taken on police remand by an ASI of Police Station, Neelganga, Ujjain, it has been observed that certain essentials, such as not providing food for 3 days and not having cared of other essential needs of a human be­ing, the deceased was compelled to commit suicide. However, it has been concluded that because of the aforesaid conduct, the Police Officials were guilty of abetting the deceased for committing suicide. 3. According to the petitioners, while the Chief Judicial Magistrate was empowered to investigate into the death of Pawan and also to make a observation regarding the circumstances which led to unnatural death of Pawan, the Magistrate was not competent to indict the Police Officials himself, as has been done in para 29 while adding the last two lines. 4. It is thus submitted that the aforesaid ad­dition in the report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain is uncalled for and requires to be expunged. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the par­ties and have also perused the judgment cited by learned petitioners' counsel delivered in the case of Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb and Ors. vs. State of UP ( AIR 2006 SC 951 ), wherein in relation to inquest report while discussing the power of a Magistrate, the Apex Court has made the following observations in paragraphs 12 and 13 - 12. The provision for holding of inquest is contained in Section 174, Cr.P.C. and the head­ing of the Section is Police to enquire and re­port on suicide etc. Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof read as under : 174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc. The provision for holding of inquest is contained in Section 174, Cr.P.C. and the head­ing of the Section is Police to enquire and re­port on suicide etc. Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof read as under : 174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc. - (1) When the officer in charge of a po­lice station or some other police officer spe­cially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall im­mediately give intimation thereof to the near­est Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what man­ner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any), such marks appear to have been inflicted. (2) The report shall be signed by such po­lice officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forth­with forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 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 that per­sons acquainted with the facts 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 that per­sons acquainted with the facts 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 174. Neither in practice nor in law it is necessary for the person holding the inquest to mention all these details. 13. In Podda Narayana vs. State of A.P., AIR 1975 SC 1252 , it was held that the proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited scope. The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and 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 S. 174. Neither in practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to mention those details in the inquest report. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. Their omission is not sufficient to put the prosecution out of Court. In Shakila Khader vs. Nausher Gama, AIR 1975 SC 1324 , the contention raised that non-mention of a person's name in the inquest report would show that he was not a eye- witness of the incident was repelled on the ground that an inquest under Section 174, Cr.P.C. is concerned with establishing the cause of death and only evi­dence necessary to establish it need be brought out. The same view was taken in Eqbal Baig vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 923 , that the non-mention of name of an eyewit­ness in the inquest report could not be a ground to-reject his testimony. The same view was taken in Eqbal Baig vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1987 SC 923 , that the non-mention of name of an eyewit­ness in the inquest report could not be a ground to-reject his testimony. Similarly, the absence of the name of the accused in the inquest re­port cannot lead to an inference that he was not present at the time of commission of the offence as the inquest report is not the state­ment of a person wherein all the names (ac­cused and also the eye-witnesses) ought to have been mentioned. The view taken in Podda Narayana vs. State of A. P. (supra) was ap­proved by a three-Judge Bench in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 1853 , and it was held that the testimony of an eye-witness could not be dis­carded on the ground that their names did not figure in the inquest report prepared at the ear­liest point of time. The nature and purpose of inquest held under Section 174, Cr.P.C. was also explained in Amor Singh vs. Bahvinder Singh, 2003 (2) SCC 518 . In the said case the High Court had observed that the fact that the details about the occurrence were not men­tioned in the inquest report showed that the Investigating Officer was not sure of the facts when the inquest report was prepared and the said feature of the case carried weight in favour of the accused. After noticing the language used in Section 174, Cr.P.C. and earlier deci­sions of this Court it was ruled that the High Court was clearly in error in observing as afore­said or drawing any inference against the pros­ecution. Thus, it is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the purpose of hold­ing an inquest is very limited, viz., to ascertain as to whether a person has committed sui­cide or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident or has died under circumstances raising a reason­able suspicion that some other person has com­mitted an offence. There is absolutely no re­quirement in law of mentioning the details of the FIR, names of the accused or the names of the eyewitnesses or the gist of their statement nor it is required to be signed by any eye-witness. There is absolutely no re­quirement in law of mentioning the details of the FIR, names of the accused or the names of the eyewitnesses or the gist of their statement nor it is required to be signed by any eye-witness. In Meharaj Singh vs. State of U.P. (su­pra) the language used by the legislature in Section 174, Cr.P.C. was not taken note of nor the earlier decisions of this Court were referred to and some sweeping observations have been made which are not supported by the statutory provision. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the observations made in paras 11 and 12 of the reports do not represent the correct state­ment of law and they are hereby overruled. The challenge laid to the prosecution case by Shri Jain on the basis of the alleged infirmity or omission in the inquest report has, therefore, no substance and cannot be accepted. 6. On the strength of aforesaid judgment, it has been submitted that in this case also the Chief Judicial Magistrate exercising the same powers as that of a Magistrate under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C., had no additional powers to indict the accused persons. Magistrate was only entitled to investigate about the circumstances leading to unnatural death. It was for the Investigating Agency to take note of the report and take ap­propriate proceedings in accordance with law. As such the two lines which have been quoted are uncalled for and cannot be allowed to stay in the report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Accordingly, they are expunged/deleted from the report of Chief Judicial Mag­istrate dated 2.6.11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.