Bombay High Court: In the application seeking quashing of the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Single Judge Bench of Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale, J., stated that normal or even harsh reaction, made in anger or momentarily, does not amount to abetment. Section 306 IPC requires a clear, deliberate, and intentional act to drive a person to suicide. Lawful actions such as loan recovery by bank officials, reminders for repayment, or strict conduct by authorities or parents do not constitute abetment of suicide. The Court stated that prima facie, the allegations, apart from being unsustainable and untenable, were also clearly contrary to the medical reports. Even if the allegations are accepted at face value, the same were general and vague in nature. Accordingly, the application was allowed.
Background
The deceased, was a retired teacher and had borrowed money from the creditors, which they were allegedly demanding. From 1 August 2022 onwards, he reportedly exhibited unusual behaviour, frequently switched off his mobile phone, and instructed his wife to tell the creditors he had gone to Pune, if they came to the house inquiring about the repayment of money.
On 9 August 2022, the deceased left home to purchase milk but did not return. Later that night, he was brought home by 2 individuals. Upon arrival, the deceased began vomiting. His wife discovered a Sprite bottle emitting a strong odor in his shirt pocket, following which he was taken to the hospital. However, on 10 August 2022, the deceased was declared dead. It was alleged that the deceased felt harassed by the continuous follow-ups and demands by the creditors, which resulted in him committing suicide by consuming poison.
It was further alleged that the deceased, who had abstained from alcohol for nearly 16 years, had recently resumed drinking due to the mental stress caused by the applicant’s actions. It was also emphasised that the deceased was a retired teacher and a respected member of society. The creditors contended that the deceased’s brother in the report to the police mentioned no suspicion on anyone about the death. While the post-mortem report attributed the cause of death to myocardial infarction leading to cardiorespiratory arrest. Medical records also indicated no signs of insecticide poisoning or intoxication. Despite this knowledge, an FIR for an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC was registered.
Aggrieved, the creditors filed an application requesting the quashing of the FIR.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the prosecution’s case was premised on the allegation that the constant demands of the creditors resulted in the death of the deceased by consumption of poison. However, in the backdrop of the post-mortem report and the chemical analysis report, the same holds untrue. Relying on Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301, the Court emphasised that mere harassment or demands for repayment of debt do not amount to abetment of suicide unless there is a proximate act of instigation or intentional conduct of mens rea to drive the deceased to commit suicide as per Section 306 IPC.
The Court stated that normal or even harsh reaction, made in anger or momentarily, does not amount to abetment. Section 306 IPC requires a clear, deliberate, and intentional act to drive a person to suicide. Lawful actions such as loan recovery by bank officials, reminders for repayment, or strict conduct by authorities or parents do not constitute abetment under Sections 107 and 306 IPC.
The Court opined that since there is no material to indicate that the deceased was beaten or physically assaulted to return the dues, continuance of the proceedings would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. The Court stated that prima facie, the allegations, apart from being unsustainable and untenable, were also clearly contrary to the medical reports. Even if the allegations are accepted at face value, the same were general and vague in nature. Accordingly, the application was allowed.
[Amit Padmakar More v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 412 of 2025, decided on 8-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicants: Rupesh K. Bobade a/w Shradha K. Nakandi
For the Respondents: Priyanka Rane, APP; Mihir Mondkar
