Taking Creditors As Abettor When Person Commits Suicide Due To Pressure Of Debt May Harm Legitimate Interest Of Those Reasonably Asking For Money: P&H High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR lodged for abetment to suicide against a man who was allegedly "pressuring" the deceased to return the money lent.

While setting aside the FIR, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "Where a person succumbs to the pressure of his debt and the creditor is taken as an abettor to his suicide simplicitor, the legitimate interest of a person asking for his own money in a reasonable manner would be harmed in every such case."

The Court was hearing the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR registered under Sections 306 and 34 IPC lodged at Haryana's Rewari district and the reports filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

It was alleged that petitioners had been pressurising and threatening to return the money which he had given him on loan, to the extent that the deceased ended his life.

The deceased person's wife had submitted under section 161 CrPC that her husband would remain under stress on account of the fact that the petitioners had been demanding their money from him.

Even on the date of the occurrence, he was under mental stress and in her absence he committed suicide by hanging himself with a rope on a fan, she added.

On the other hand, the petitioner submitted that the deceased would avail loans from them which he repaid from time to time but lately, the loans availed by the deceased had not been repaid. 

According to the prosecution, petitioners had been calling him repeatedly to return their money and would hurl abuses to mount pressure upon him which had led him to commit suicide and them being named in his suicide note.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that as per Sections 107 IPC and 306 IPC, and Harbhajan Sandhu Versus State of Punjab & another and others among other High Court's decision:

"...to constitute abetment, there must be a proximate and live link between the occurrence and the subsequent suicide inasmuch as the instigation or illegal act of omission or commission at the hands of the accused must be the only factor which subsequently led the deceased to commit suicide."

 Further, merely being named in a suicide would not by itself establish the culpability of an accused until the ingredients of an offence are made out, it added.

Justice Bedi highlighted that while dealing with a petition for quashing an FIR under Section 306 IPC, the test that the Court must apply is the reaction of a normal person of ordinary prudence when faced with incidents of harassment.

If the Court feels that the level of harassment faced was such that even a person of ordinary prudence with normal behaviour and reactions would be forced to take the extreme step of committing suicide, then the Court would do well in not quashing proceedings, the judge further clarified.

"On the other hand, if the Court comes to the conclusion that an ordinary person with normal reactions to harassment would not commit suicide but the deceased did so on account of his hypersensitive nature or other contributing factors then the Court must not hesitate in quashing the proceedings," the judge added.

In the present case, the Court noted that a perusal of the FIR, the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the suicide note do not disclose any specific incidents of acute harassment "which was likely to drive the deceased to commit suicide. In fact, there has been absolutely no positive act on the part of the petitioners to aid or instigate the deceased for committing suicide."

"From the allegations and the from the record it has not been established that the petitioners intended to push the deceased to such a situation that he would ultimately commit suicide," the Court opined.

"At the very best what could be said is that the deceased was pressurized to return the loan amount received by him from the petitioners and nothing more. Therefore, apparently, a person of ordinary prudence would not have committed suicide in similar circumstances but the deceased did due to his hypersensitive nature," it added.

In light of the above, the Court quashed the FIR and reports filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Rajiv Goel, D.A.G., Haryana.

Himanshu Rao, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Title: SUSHIL KUMAR @ SUSHIL YADAV & ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

Click here to read/download the order