The Nagpur High Court in Bombay made it clear that requiring an unpaid loan from a defaulting borrower cannot be considered an offense of incitement to suicide.
“The demand for the unpaid loan amount on the part of the person who was in default of the loan amount, during his employment as a duty, to no stretch of the imagination can be considered an intention to assist, incite or encourage the deceased to commit suicide, ” a magistracy VM Deshpande and AS Kilor To tenuous.
The Court had before it a criminal claim filed by a certain Rohit, requesting the annulment of an FIR registered against him by the Maharashtra police under section 306 of the IPC.
It was alleged in the FIR that the applicant harassed the deceased, Pramod Prakash, for the repayment of the loan, which ultimately led him to commit suicide.
Counsel for the Applicant had argued that the allegations against him related only to the claim for the unpaid loan amount, which does not amount to the Applicant’s intention to encourage the deceased to commit suicide.
He submitted,
“Aiding and abetting involves a mental process consisting of instigating a person or intentionally helping a person to do a thing and without a positive act on the part of the accused by aiding or inciting or encouraging the deceased person to commit suicide, said persons cannot be forced to face the test.“
Trust was placed on Amit S / o Ashok Naharkar v. State of Maharashtra, & Anr., 2018 SCC Online Bom 1399.
In this case, the deceased had taken out a loan of Rs. 6 21,000 / – from Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Limited for the purchase of a new vehicle. While, according to the contract, the deceased was required to repay the loan amount in four years by paying a monthly payment of Rs 17,800 / -, he had only paid Rs 15,800 / – and assured that he would pay the remaining amount later. .
In the FIR, it was alleged that the applicant did not listen to the deceased’s request and began to harass him. This was the further case of the prosecution that on the cell phone also deceased was harassed. The suicide note written by the deceased was seized, indicating the applicant’s involvement in the crime.
In this context, the APP argued that due to the demand for the unpaid loan amount, the deceased was under enormous mental pressure, which was the cause of the suicide of the deceased.
Results
The Division Bench noted that the allegations against the accused were only to the effect that he demanded the amount of the unpaid loan from the deceased, which was part of his duty as an employee of the Société Financière.
The Chamber referred to the case of Amit Naharkar (supra) where also an employee of a financial company was involved in a criminal case concerning the suicide of a man, allegedly for asking for reimbursement.
In this case, it was held that it was necessary that the prosecution At first glance establish that the accused had a intention to help, induce or encourage the deceased to commit suicide.
In a similar case in Santoshkumar v. Maharashtra State, 2020 CSC Online Bom 914, the High Court had ruled that “If the amount of the previous loan is unpaid and if the applicant, branch manager of said bank, refuses to grant a new loan, this can be considered an act of vigilant and prudent banker and if he does not grant any further ready, he It cannot be said that by such an act he incited and / or encouraged the person to commit suicide.“
As a result, the Bench Division canceled the disputed FIR and concluded that none of the requirements of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code were met.
Case title: Rohit S / o Nawanath Nalawade v. Maharashtra State
Click here to download the order
