Mere Levy Of High Interest Rate On Loan Amount Does Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide Absent Any Overt Acts: Delhi High Court

The Court affirmed that, in the absence of any overt act evidencing intention to provoke or compel suicide, criminal liability cannot be fastened upon a lender merely because the borrower was under financial distress.

The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge discharging the accused persons of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC arising from a case involving suicide allegedly linked to loan recovery pressure.

A Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan upheld the discharge order and declined interference in revisional jurisdiction, while observing that “the mere act of levying a high rate of interest, even if predatory, does not ipso facto amount to incitement to commit suicide, especially in the absence of any overt act from which instigation can be inferred”.

Background

The prosecution case arose after the complainant’s husband died by suicide at his residence, where a note was recovered stating that he was taking the step due to harassment by a lender from whom he had borrowed ₹1.5 lakh and issued a blank cheque. The note alleged that the lender had demanded repayment with interest calculated at 10% and had threatened legal consequences.

Based on the complainant’s statement, an FIR was registered alleging offences under Sections 306, 506 and 34 IPC against the lender and his son. It was alleged that the accused used to visit the victim’s house, make repeated calls, and threaten imprisonment or other consequences if payment was not made.

Investigation included analysis of call records, which showed regular contact between the lender and the deceased but no calls between the deceased and the co-accused son. The trial court found a prima facie case for criminal intimidation but discharged both accused of abetment of suicide. The complainant challenged the discharge before the High Court.

The petitioner contended that continuous harassment, threats, and demands for repayment created unbearable circumstances leading the deceased to end his life, and that the trial court erred by evaluating evidence instead of assessing whether a prima facie case existed.

The respondents argued that the allegations, even if accepted, disclosed at best insistence on repayment of a loan and did not establish any direct or proximate instigation. They maintained that vague allegations of harassment without a clear causal nexus to the suicide cannot sustain a charge under Section 306 IPC.

Court’s Observation

The Delhi High Court first reiterated settled principles governing interference at the stage of charge and discharge, noting that revisional jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and cannot be treated as an appellate reassessment of evidence. The inquiry is confined to whether the material discloses the basic ingredients of the alleged offence.

Referring to precedents including Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, and State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, the Court emphasised that a charge can be framed only when material gives rise to a grave suspicion of guilt and not merely a speculative or weak inference.

Turning to the offence of abetment of suicide, the Court examined Sections 306 and 107 IPC and reiterated that liability arises only where the accused instigates, conspires, or intentionally aids the suicide, and that mens rea is an indispensable element. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions, including Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab and Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police, which stress that insulting or harsh conduct alone does not constitute abetment absent intent to provoke suicide.

The Court noted that even according to the prosecution material, the allegations essentially concerned demands for repayment of dues. It was observed that persistent demands, phone calls, or even harsh language used while pressing for repayment do not automatically amount to instigation unless they demonstrate deliberate intention to drive the victim to suicide.

Addressing the alleged remark asking the deceased to pay or commit suicide, the Court held that such a statement, even if assumed to be made, must be assessed in context and from a practical standpoint. Words spoken in the heat of the moment, without intention that they should be acted upon, cannot be treated as instigation.

The Bench further held that even if the accused were charging usurious interest, such conduct would at most attract liability under money-lending laws and not automatically constitute abetment. The Court also distinguished the role of the co-accused, noting that he was not named in the suicide note and had no call record connectivity with the deceased, rendering the case against him even weaker.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that while financial distress and pressure from the lender may have been factors contributing to the suicide, the material did not disclose the requisite intention or conduct necessary to constitute abetment.

Conclusion

Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s reasoning, the High Court upheld the discharge of the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC and dismissed the revision petition. It clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the present challenge and would not affect the trial in respect of other charges.

Cause Title: Smt Sunil v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1321)

Appearances

Petitioner: Shailender Dahiya, Advocate.

Respondents: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Divya Yadav, J.P. Sengh, Deepak Kumar Mishra, Sidheesh Yadav, Prince Mishra, Advocates.

Click here to read/download Judgment