Mere calls demanding repayment of loan can't attract abetment of suicide offence: Supreme Court

A creditor making a phone call to debtor demanding repayment of loan cannot attract the offence of abetment of suicide against the former in the absence of specific evidence of threats or instigation, the Supreme Court recently held [Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Lotwala Vs State of Gujarat]

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan held that for an act to attract the offence of abetment of suicide, there should be an intentional aid or active participation instigating the person to die by suicide.

Hence, it quashed the case against a creditor who was booked for calling the deceased 40 times in 6 months demanding repayment of money.

"If a creditor makes a phone call to the debtor for return of his money that being a lawful act, it cannot on its own constitute a ground to prosecute the creditor. Moreover, the deceased may have committed suicide on account of depression for not being able to clear off the debt."

The case arose from the suicide of a man who allegedly jumped in front of a tractor trolley due to mounting pressure from multiple creditors to repay loans.

The prosecution relied primarily on a suicide note naming nine individuals, including the appellant, and call detail records showing that the appellant had made around 40 phone calls to the deceased over six months.

The Gujarat High Court had dismissed the appellant’s plea to quash the proceedings, holding that there was sufficient prima facie material to proceed against the accused.

It relied on the suicide note naming the creditors and call detail records showing repeated calls, The High Court opined that these circumstances warranted a trial.

However, the Supreme Court found that the material on record was insufficient to establish the ingredients of abetment of suicide.

“As far as the suicide note is concerned, we find that it lacks material particulars regarding the nature of those threats and the time and place when those threats were extended,” the apex court held.

It further stated that the note failed to attribute specific roles to any of the accused.

“Moreover, the suicide note indicts as many as 9 accused without specifying the role of any one of them,” the Court observed.

On the call records, the Court made it clear that repeated attempts by a creditor to recover money cannot be treated as criminal conduct.

The Bench also observed that the possibility of the deceased having taken the extreme step due to financial distress or inability to repay debts could not be ruled out.

Crucially, the Court held that the evidence on record was insufficient to establish the essential ingredients of abetment, namely instigation, intentional aid or active participation in the commission of suicide.

In these circumstances, the Court concluded that allowing the prosecution to continue would serve no purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Hence, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the appellant.

The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate K Parmeshwar with advocates Febin Mathew Varghese, Lija Merin John, Veda Singh, Prasad Hegde, N Sai Kaushal, Soyarchon Khangrah, Arti Sawariya and Dhiraj Abraham Philip.

The respondents were represented by advocates Prashant Bhagwati, Swati Ghildiyal, Nimesh Bhatt; Md Sadath Hussain, Manish Kumar, Zeeshan Rizvi, S Islam, Hari Singh, Nikita Kumari, Md Irshad Ahmed and Padmavathi Yakama.

[Read Judgment]