18 June 2025 Writ Petition >> Criminal Law  

In a recent significant ruling of Nishit Patel v/s State of Maharashtra, Through Khar Police Station & Another, the High Court emphasized that merely demanding the repayment of a loan, even if the borrower tragically commits suicide, does not automatically constitute abetment to suicide. This decision underscores the crucial distinction between legitimate debt recovery and the severe act of instigation required for an offense under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Background of the Case:

The case involved a businessman, the petitioner, who had a long-standing relationship with the deceased and his family. The petitioner had advanced substantial loans to the deceased, Navroz Tejani, and his son, with formal loan agreements in place. Tragically, Navroz Tejani committed suicide on July 24, 2017.

Initially, no suspicion was raised by the deceased's son. However, more than four months after the suicide, a suicide note was discovered by the deceased's wife while unpacking at their new residence. Based on this note, an FIR (C.R. No. 515 of 2017) was lodged against several individuals, including the petitioner, for alleged offenses under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC. The prosecution primarily relied on the suicide note and the statement of one Ranchod Parmar to establish the petitioner's involvement.

The Petitioner's Defense:

The petitioner's counsel argued that even if the prosecution's case were taken at face value, no offense was made out against the petitioner. They contended that the evidence, specifically the suicide note and Parmar's statement, did not remotely suggest abetment. The defense heavily relied on the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Bhajan Lal and Others (1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335), which outlines categories of cases where an FIR can be quashed.

Prosecution's Stance:

Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) and the counsel for Respondent No. 2 (the deceased's wife) maintained that the suicide note and Ranchod Parmar's statement clearly indicated the petitioner's complicity, sufficient for a prima facie case.

Court's Examination of Evidence and Law:

The Court meticulously examined the evidence presented, particularly the suicide note and Ranchod Parmar's statement. The suicide note, written between July 20 and July 23, 2017, listed nine individuals, including the petitioner, as "main culprits." The allegation against the petitioner read: "P. K. Gupta -- cheater No. 1... All this above people took away lots of money from me and cheated me and also threatened me." Ranchod Parmar's statement, recorded much later on January 28, 2018, mentioned the deceased borrowing money at interest and the named individuals "mentally torturing" the boss for money.

The Court then delved into the legal framework, specifically Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC. Section 306 deals with abetment of suicide, and Section 107 defines abetment, which includes instigating a person, engaging in a conspiracy, or intentionally aiding an act.

Key Legal Precedents:

The High Court cited several Supreme Court judgments to emphasize the stringent requirements for proving abetment to suicide:

• Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2025 SC 568): This case established that for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, the accused must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by facilitating the suicide. A mere allegation of harassment is insufficient.
• Swamy Prahaladdas Vs. State of M.P. (1995 Supp (3) SCC 438): The Court held that casual remarks like "to go and die" during a quarrel were not enough to instigate suicide.
• Prakash and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835): This judgment reiterated that there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement that are in close proximity to the suicide, revealing a clear mens rea (guilty mind) to abet.
• Nipun Aneja and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091): The Supreme Court highlighted that abetment requires "direct and alarming encouragement/incitement" leaving no option but to commit suicide. It distinguished between sentimental and official relationships, noting that expectations differ.
• Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana ((2024) 3 SCC 573): This case emphasized that conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable merely on allegations of harassment without positive action proximate to the time of occurrence that compelled the person to commit suicide.
• Ude Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana ((2019) 17 SCC 301): The Court stressed the need for cogent and convincing proof of incitement. It cautioned against convicting a person if the deceased was hypersensitive and the accused's action would not ordinarily induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide. However, if the accused's continuous conduct creates a situation leaving no option but suicide, it could fall under Section 306.
• Ramrao S/o Govindrao Dhakane Vs The State of Maharashtra and Another (Criminal Application No.3086/2023, decided on 20.09.2024): The Aurangabad Bench quashed an FIR where a video recording by the deceased, though blaming the accused for financial trouble, also stated no one was pressuring him, indicating a lack of instigation.

Court's Finding and Conclusion:

Applying these principles, the High Court concluded that the prosecution's case, even taken as a whole, did not disclose an offense against the petitioner. The Court found no evidence that the petitioner, by demanding loan repayment, had the requisite mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation, as per legal precedents, must be of such intensity as to leave the deceased with no choice but to end their life, and it must be in close proximity to the act of suicide.

The Court noted that neither the suicide note nor Ranchod Parmar's statement revealed the necessary proximity between the petitioner's actions and the deceased's suicide, nor did they show any instigation compelling the deceased to take the extreme step. The Court found no evidence of abusive language or intimidation on the part of the petitioner.

Therefore, the High Court allowed the petition, quashing the FIR and the subsequent charge-sheet against the petitioner, concluding that no offense under Sections 306 or 506(2) of the IPC was disclosed. This ruling reinforces the legal principle that financial demands, in themselves, do not amount to abetment of suicide unless there's clear, proximate, and intentional instigation.

Section 34., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 107., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 306., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 506., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860