The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against six people, holding that mere demands for loan repayment cannot be a proximate cause of abetment of suicide in the absence of wilful instigation or conspiracy.

The court noted that while the police had registered a case alleging that a retired teacher killed himself by consuming poison because of harassment over loan repayments, the postmortem report and chemical analysis showed that he had died of a heart attack and that no poison was detected in his body.

Justice Ranjitsinha R Bhonsale, sitting at the Kolhapur circuit bench, passed a ruling last month on an application filed by six persons seeking the quashing of a 2022 FIR registered against them under Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 306 (abetment of suicide) and subsequent proceedings pending before a magistrate’s court.

Advocate Rupesh Bobade, appearing for the six people, argued that no proximate cause linked them to any act of instigation or abetment. Despite this, “shockingly and with mala fide intent”, the police stated in the chargesheet that the man died by heart attack because of mental pressure from the six people’s persistent loan repayment demands, he added.

Justice Bhonsale, after examining the material on record, observed, “A reaction of a normal, prudent person, and sometimes an excessive reaction in anger or at the spur of the moment, may be harsh on certain occasions, but cannot be termed as abetment. What is required is a conscious, deliberate, intentional act aimed at driving the other person to die by suicide.”

The judge said that “a bank official pursuing a defaulter on behalf of a bank/financial institution, as part of his/her employment, and as a legal recourse for recovery of outstanding loans, cannot be termed as abetment and/or attract the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC”.

“Similarly, a follow-up for a recovery of a friendly loan or every reprimand by authorities, may be at work or at school, or actions of stern parents cannot be termed as abetment under Section 107 of the IPC to make out an offence under Section 306 of the IPC,” he added.

The judge said the prosecution’s case was “contradicted” by available evidence; therefore, the invocation of IPC section 306 and the criminal prosecution were “totally misplaced and untenable”.

The high court observed that the loand repayment demands in the case had “no wilful instigation or any conspiracy or intentional aiding any person” to die by suicide, adding that there was no suicide note.

“Even assuming that the demands were made for repayment of loans, such demands cannot be termed as a proximate cause or link to the act of suicide,” Justice Bhonsale said.

The high court held that the allegations were “general and vague in nature” and therefore the alleged acts would not be sufficient to invoke IPC section 306 by any stretch of imagination.