The Supreme Court has ruled that suicide by a debtor owing to constant pressure for repayment cannot be a ground to prosecute the creditor for abetment.

The apex court passed the ruling while allowing a petition filed by Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Lotwala, challenging Gujarat High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR and chargesheet filed against him and eight other creditors for abetting the suicide of one Jayantibhai.

“As far as the suicide note is concerned, we find that it lacks material particulars regarding the nature of those threats and the time and place when those threats were extended. Moreover, the suicide note indicts as many as nine accused without specifying the role of any one of them. It is not the case of the prosecution that all the accused belong to one family or were harassing the deceased as a group,” a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan said in a recent order.

The bench said the deceased “had painted all creditors with one brush” and a trial based on such a suicide note would be futile. The
police had filed the case based on a letter found in the deceased’s pocket.

The apex court also said a creditor calling up a debtor for the return of money was a lawful act and “cannot on its own constitute a ground to prosecute the creditor”.

“Moreover, the deceased may have committed suicide on account of depression for not being able to clear the debt,” the bench added.

“In such circumstances, particularly when there is no material to indicate that the deceased was beaten or physically assaulted to return the dues, we are of the view that there is hardly any material on basis whereof it could be inferred that the appellant, by demanding his dues,
abetted commission of suicide by the deceased,” the bench observed.

“In our view, therefore, the continuance of the proceedings against the appellant would be a futile exercise and would amount to abuse of the process of the court. Hence, to secure the ends of justice, it is necessary that the same be quashed,” it said.

Allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the high court’s order and quashed the impugned criminal proceedings against the appellant.

The prosecution had submitted that Jayantibhai had committed suicide by jumping underneath a tractor trolley because he felt harassed by persistent demands by several persons, including the appellant, for paying back the money he had loaned.

The case against the appellant is based on a suicide note said to have been recovered from the deceased’s pocket by his family members.

The investigating agency had also collected details of the calls made by the appellant to Jayantibhai, which showed that the former had made 40 calls in six months. Based on the call detail record report, the investigating agency said Jayantibhai committed suicide out of desperation and because of persistent harassment over loan repayment, making the appellant guilty of abetment of suicide.

The suicide note, purportedly written by Jayantibhai, stated that he had borrowed money from nine people, including the appellant, and they had been repeatedly pressuring him to return the money. The suicide note also stated that there was no dispute between him and his family members.