The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence of abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement and a clear mens rea to commit the offence. The court emphasized the need for evidence to establish a high degree of mental cruelty and the absence of any suicide note or written document indicating abetment.

1. These two petitions, clubbed together, raise a common question of law and the facts as these arise out of the same FIR bearing No. 04 of 2010, registered at Police Station, Gandhinagar, Jammu, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 RPC and, therefore, require to be determined and decided by a common judgment.

2. The facts culled from the aforesaid petitions are that the police authorities of Police Chowki, Nehru Market, Jammu, received an information on the 22nd day of December, 2009, from the authorities of the Government Medical College, Jammu, to the effect that one Dr. Aparna Saini D/o Sh. Kamal Saini, a Deputy Inspector General of Police, committed suicide at the place of her dwelling, i.e. Government quarter No. 21/C, situate at Gulshan Ground, Jammu. On this information, a Daily Dairy report bearing No. 17 dated 22nd of December, 2009, was entered at Police Post, Nehru Market, as a consequence of which, an enquiry, as postulated under Section 174 Cr. P.C. for ascertaining the cause of the death of the deceased, was initiated. The said enquiry culminated into the registration of an FIR, being No. 04 of the year 2010, for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 306 read with section 34 RPC and, as a sequel thereto, the investigation ensued. On the completion of the investigation of the case, a report was laid against the petitioners in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this report, filed before the Court, it is stated that on the appreciation, evaluation and assessment of the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164(A) Cr. P.C., as also by reference to some documents, it is established that the petitioners have committed the offence aforesaid. What gets revealed from this report further is that Dr. Aparna Saini was engaged to the petitioner, namely, Himanshu Sharma on 20th of February, 2009 and after this engagement, Dr. Aparna Saini came to know that the petitioner-Himanshu Sharma has illicit relations with Dr. Lata Sheoran, i.e. the petitioner in CRMC No.47/2010, who was residing with the petitioner-Himanshu Sharma in the house in which he lived. The deceased took repeated objections to the conduct of petitioner-Himanshu Sharma and he, in turn, would harass and humiliate her and would also affirm that he will not marry her. Dr. Aparna Saina could not bear this humiliation. She felt that she will be brought to a ridicule in the Society and, therefore, thought it expedient to hang herself to death.

3. Both the petitioners, in their respective petitions, have challenged the vires of the FIR registered against them on the grounds, inter alia, that neither the FIR nor the investigation of the case, at any stage whatsoever, disclosed the commission of any offence against them. The final investigation report laid before the Court of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu, also does not, in any manner whatsoever, disclose the commission of the offence imputed to them. Registration of an FIR, it is stated, is not an idle formality and cannot be done as a matter of course. An FIR can be registered only after probing deep into the allegations made in light of the law disclosing a, prima facie, offence. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are, prima facie, incapable of making out any offence against them and, therefore, the entire investigation is vitiated in the instant case. It is also stated that if the entire prosecution story is taken to be true on its face value, still, it is not capable of disclosing any offence, much less against the petitioners herein. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners would be an abuse of the power and jurisdiction as is conferred on the Investigating Agency for the registration of the case and would also be an abuse of the process of law. The allegations made in the FIR and the Police report are only in the nature of wild allegations in which the Investiga