Loan Recovery Action By Bank Officials Or Creditors By Itself Not Abetment Of Suicide U/S 306 IPC: Bombay High Court
The Court held that mere demands for repayment of loans, follow-up calls or insistence on return of money cannot by themselves constitute abetment of suicide unless there exists a proximate and intentional act of instigation compelling the deceased to take the extreme step.
The Bombay High Court has held that a bank official pursuing a defaulter for recovery of outstanding dues, or a creditor seeking repayment of a friendly loan, cannot, by itself, amount to abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC.
The Court observed that criminal liability for abetment of suicide requires a clear and intentional act of instigation or aiding the commission of suicide, and that ordinary recovery efforts or reprimands cannot attract penal liability under Section 306 IPC.
The Court was hearing a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC against several persons accused of allegedly harassing a borrower for repayment of loans, resulting in his alleged suicide.
The prosecution's case was that the deceased had borrowed money from various persons and was under mental stress due to persistent demands for repayment.
A Bench of Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale observed: “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 IPC.”
The Bench further observed: “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 a stern parents cannot be termed as abetment under Section 107 of the IPC to make out an offence under Section 306 of the IPC.”
The Court also held: “There has to be, on the part of the accused, a positive intentional act of abetment, which is proximate in occurrence which led to the deceased to committing suicide” and that “the pure and simple act of demand or follow up with the creditor for return or repayment of loan cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as an act of abetment.”
Advocates Rupesh K. Bobade and Shradha K. Nakadi represented the appellants, while APP Priyanka Rane and Advocate Mihir Mondkar appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Background
According to the prosecution, the deceased had borrowed money on interest from various persons, including the applicants. It was alleged that the applicants were continuously demanding repayment of the loans, causing mental harassment and stress to the deceased.
The FIR alleged that due to such continuous pressure and demands, the deceased consumed poison and later died. Based on the complaint lodged by the wife of the deceased, FIR No.396 of 2022 came to be registered at Kurduwadi Police Station under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
The applicants contended before the High Court that the allegations in the FIR were contrary to the medical and forensic evidence. The applicants pointed out that the postmortem report recorded the cause of death as “auto myocardial infarction leading to cardiorespiratory arrest”, namely heart attack, and that the chemical analysis report did not reveal the presence of poison or insecticide.
The applicants further argued that even accepting the allegations in the FIR in their entirety, the allegations merely disclosed that creditors were seeking repayment of loans, and such conduct could not amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
The complainant opposed the plea and argued that the deceased had been subjected to continuous harassment and pressure for repayment of loans, which had caused severe mental stress, ultimately leading to his death. Reliance was placed upon call detail records and statements alleging persistent demands for repayment.
Court’s Observation
The High Court extensively examined the scope and ingredients of Sections 306 and 107 IPC along with the principles governing abetment of suicide laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004), Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010), M. Arjunan v. State (2019), Ude Singh v. State of Haryana (2019), Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra (2024), Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Lotwala v. State of Gujarat (2025) and Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013).
The Court observed that abetment necessarily requires an intentional and positive act of instigation, aid or facilitation intended to provoke or encourage the commission of suicide.
The Bench observed: “A perusal of the provision indicates that abetment necessarily involves an intentional and positive act of instigation, assistance, or active facilitation to urge a person to commit a particular act.”
The Court further held that to attract Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prima facie establish a direct and proximate link between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide.
The Court observed: “The evidence or the allegation should prima facie suggest that the intention of the accused, or the acts, conduct of the accused was intended to or done with the object of driving the person to commit suicide.”
The Bench further clarified that ordinary human conduct, harsh words spoken in anger, or routine recovery actions cannot automatically be treated as abetment to suicide unless accompanied by deliberate intention to drive the victim to death.
The Court observed: “What is required is a conscious, deliberate, intentional act aimed at driving the other person to commit suicide.”
The High Court also noted that the entire foundation of the prosecution's case was contradicted by the medical material collected during the investigation. Referring to the postmortem report and chemical analysis report, the Court observed that the allegation that the deceased consumed poison stood in contradiction to the forensic evidence.
The Court observed: “The postmortem report would indicate that the probable cause of death is ‘Death due to auto myocardial infarction leading to cardiorespiratory arrest’ i.e. heart attack.”
The Bench further noted: “The chemical analysis report dated 26th May 2023 would indicate that there is no trace of poison or any similar item in the stomach of the deceased.”
The High Court found that even accepting the allegations at face value, the acts attributed to the applicants merely disclosed demands for repayment of money and follow-up calls by creditors. Such conduct, according to the Court, did not satisfy the statutory ingredients of abetment under Sections 107 and 306 IPC.
The Court observed: “From a perusal of the allegations, it prima facie appears that, in the said act of demand for repayment of loan/return of monies lent, there is no willful instigation or any conspiracy or intentional aiding any person to commit suicide.”
The Court further held that there was no material demonstrating continuous acts of such intensity and gravity that the deceased was left with no option except to commit suicide.
The Bench observed: “To make out a case under Section 306 of the IPC, it is required to be shown that the deceased was left with no other option in life but to commit suicide.”
The Court also noted inconsistencies in the statements of the complainant and observed that the allegations in the FIR were general, vague and unsupported by corroborative material.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that no offence under Section 306 IPC was made out against the applicants and that continuation of criminal proceedings would be unsustainable in law.
The Court accordingly quashed criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.396 of 2022 insofar as the applicants were concerned, while clarifying that proceedings against the remaining co-accused would continue.
Cause Title: Amit Padmakar More & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-KOL:3840-DB)