Delaying Disbursal Of Sanctioned Loan By Itself Cannot Attract Offence Of Abetment To Suicide: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that delaying disbursement of sanctioned loan amount and seeking of deposits by way of loan processing fee and first installment amount by a finance firm cannot be termed as "abetment to suicide".

The Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

The division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Hiten Shamrao Venegavkar observed, "In the present case, even accepting the F.I.R at its face value, the ingredients of Section 306 are not made out. The petitioners are alleged to have delayed disbursement and sought deposits by way of loan processing fee and first installment amount. However, these acts do not constitute the important element of abetment i.e., “instigation” within the meaning of Section 107 of I.P.C. There are no allegations against the petitioners uttering any word or committing any positive act or performing any positive act which can be said to have intended to provoke or push the deceased for committing suicide...."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate N. S. Ghanekar while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor P. R. Bharaswadkar.

Facts of the Case

The first informant i.e., Respondent No.2 herein along with her deceased husband and her children were residing together. Their house was under construction and due to lack of finances it continued under construction for several months. In order to complete the said construction, the deceased had applied for housing loan of Rs. 6,25,000/- from a finance company namely Nivara Housing Finance. The present Petitioner were the employees of the said company and it was alleged that during the pendency of the loan proposal, some or the other time each of the Petitioners have handled the said proposal for sanctioning the loan. The fulcrum of the entire allegations made in the F.I.R was that the Petitioners had assured the deceased and Respondent No. 2 that the loan has been sanctioned and even furnished a sanction letter to them, however no loan amount was ever disbursed. It was further alleged that the Petitioners had obtained numerous signatures from Respondent No. 2 and her deceased husband and have further demanded amounts for processing the loan application. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 and her deceased husband had already paid an amount of Rs. 70,000/- and an advance installment amount of Rs. 1,600/- and yet the loan amount was not disbursed. According to the F.I.R. this non disbursement left construction of the house incomplete. It resulted in humiliation to the deceased in society and created unbearable mental agony for which, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself.

Reasoning By Court

The Court remarked that though suicide in itself is a tragic incident, however a strict scrutiny of the said law has to be made giving references to the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the charge sheet.

"The Hon’ble Apex Court have time and again clarified that not every act which causes distress, humiliation or frustration is punishable. Section 306 of I.P.C. incorporates the definition of “abetment”. In Section 107 of I.P.C, which in turn requires proof of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. Thus, repeatedly, Hon’ble Apex Court has questioned that unless there is strict and proximate link between the conduct of the accused and the act of suicide, supported by mens rea to provoke the deceased towards such act, criminal liability cannot be fastened", the Court observed.

It referred to Supreme Court's decision in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh, 2001 and stressed that abetment involves a mental process of active complicity. Further referring to S. S. Chheena Vs. Viay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) whrerein the Supreme Court held that without a positive act on the part of accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained, the Court ruled that there must be clear mens rea to provoke the commission of suicide and the act must be of such nature as leaves the factum with no option but to take his life.

"In case of Sanju @ Sanjy Singh Sengar, (2002) 5 SCC 371, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that discord, reprimands or disappointments cannot amount to instigate. In case of Prakash and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835, financial dispute were held insufficient to constitute abetment unless accompanied by a proximate act of provocation. In recent judgment of Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/1103/2025 the Court reiterated that the link between the accused conduct and the suicide must be direct and proximate, remote, vague or general allegations do not suffice", the Court observed.

Noting that offence of abetment to suicide is not made out in the present case, the Court held, "......the record reveals that the loan proposal was submitted for third party verification and the same was received with the negative report. This justifying the non disbursement of the loan amount. Act of the deceased in committing suicide, however, tragic itself seems to be an independent decision of his sense of frustration. If the construction of the house remains incomplete due to non-availability of funds, then it cannot cause instigation for suicide. Deceased could have raised money from other sources. Non-disbursement of sanctioned loan cannot cause defamation. Criminal law in our considered view and in light of the law discussed above cannot be stretched to cover every such situation as the Supreme Court in case of S. S. Chheena (cited supra) held, there must be a direct and proximate act of instigation and no mere circumstances which creates its abetment can attract the ingredients of Section 306 of I.P.C."

It concluded, "......the offences pertaining to abetment of suicide we do not find that the allegations in the F.I.R and charge sheet discloses the ingredients of Section 306 of I.P.C. The petitioners have neither instigated nor conspired with intentionally aided to the deceased in committing suicide. The causal link between their acts and the suicide is absent."

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Vishal s/o Bhanudas Jadhav vs. The State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-AUG:24326-DB)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate N. S. Ghanekar

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor P. R. Bharaswadkar, Advocate Ajinkya Joshi

Click here to read/ download Order