The Supreme Court has held that merely asking a borrower to repay a loan, even through repeated phone calls, does not constitute the offence of abetment of suicide. The Court clarified that seeking repayment of money is a lawful act and cannot, by itself, attract criminal liability under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case involved allegations that a debtor took his own life due to pressure from multiple creditors demanding repayment. The prosecution relied on a suicide note and call records showing frequent communication between the accused and the deceased. However, the Court found that these materials were insufficient to establish any direct instigation or intention to drive the person to suicide.
The bench observed that for an offence of abetment, there must be clear evidence of intentional instigation, coercion, or active participation in the act leading to suicide. In the absence of such elements—such as physical force, threats of a serious nature, or continuous harassment aimed at compelling suicide—the essential ingredients of the offence are not satisfied.
It further noted that the suicide note lacked specific details about the nature and extent of alleged threats, and it indiscriminately named several individuals without clearly identifying their roles. This weakened the prosecution’s case and made it unsafe to proceed with criminal charges.
Concluding that the allegations did not meet the legal threshold for abetment, the Supreme Court quashed the proceedings, stating that continuing the case would amount to misuse of the legal process.
