Merely Making Demands To Recover Loan Amount Isn't Abetment Of Suicide: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently held that if a person makes demands to recover a loan amount then this act alone will not be treated as abetment of suicide as it observed that any person who has given a loan would certainly like to get it back.

The bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha made this observation while quashing the FIR and Chargesheet against one Shaila Singh who had been accused of abetting the suicide of the deceased, a woman.

In brief, as per the facts of the case, the husband (named Naresh Yadav) of the deceased, a government teacher, introduced a government scheme relating to Prime Minister Vikas Kaushal Scheme to the present petitioner. The petitioner provided about Rs. 10 Lakhs to the husband of the deceased.

Thereafter, the husband of the deceased, dishonestly, did not return the share of the money to the concerned institution including the institution of the petitioner. When the petitioner requested the husband (Yadav) of the deceased to repay the amount which he had taken from the petitioner, he stopped taking her calls or responding to her messages.

Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly threatened the husband of the deceased to face consequences and being aggrieved by the said threat, the deceased consumed a poisonous substance Accordingly, the prosecution agency filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for an offence under section 306 of the IPC.

Challenging the same, the petitioner moved the High Court contending that there is no material which indicates that anything had transpired between the deceased and the present petitioner, and hence, there was no material for charging her for the offence of abetting the deceased to commit suicide.

It was also argued that if the petitioner had made a demand from the husband of the deceased to repay the loan amount, but she never made any complaint to the police authorities nor moved before any higher officials of the Police Department, which could abet the suicide of the deceased.

Against the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court noted that even if the prosecution version is taken as true and correct, there is no material on record to establish that the petitioner had adopted any coercive methods to recover her loan amount.

The Court further noted that if there was any demand made by the petitioner, that cannot be treated as abetment as any person who has given a loan would certainly like to get it back.

"If there was any unlawful activity performed by the petitioner to recover the loan amount, either the deceased or her husband could have taken shelter of any competent Court of law or at least made a complaint before the police authorities, which admittedly, in this case, is missing," the Court further added as it set aside the trial Court's of framing of charge for offence under Section 306 of the IPC against the petitioner.

With this, a Section 482 plea was allowed.

Case title - Shaila Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Case Citation:

Click Here To Read/Download Order