Mere demand for loan repayment doesn’t amount to abetment of suicide: Bombay High Court

3 min readMumbaiJun 4, 2026 05:42 PM IST

The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR registered against six people accused of abetting a school teacher's suicide.

The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR registered against six people, holding that mere demands for loan repayment cannot be a proximate cause of abetment of suicide in the absence of wilful instigation or conspiracy.

The court noted that while the police had registered a case alleging that a retired teacher killed himself by consuming poison because of harassment over loan repayments, the postmortem report and chemical analysis showed that he had died of a heart attack and that no poison was detected in his body.

Justice Ranjitsinha R Bhonsale, sitting at the Kolhapur circuit bench, passed a ruling last month on an application filed by six persons seeking the quashing of a 2022 FIR registered against them under Indian Penal Code (IPC) section 306 (abetment of suicide) and subsequent proceedings pending before a magistrate’s court.

Advocate Rupesh Bobade, appearing for the six people, argued that no proximate cause linked them to any act of instigation or abetment. Despite this, “shockingly and with mala fide intent”, the police stated in the chargesheet that the man died by heart attack because of mental pressure from the six people’s persistent loan repayment demands, he added.

Justice Bhonsale, after examining the material on record, observed, “A reaction of a normal, prudent person, and sometimes an excessive reaction in anger or at the spur of the moment, may be harsh on certain occasions, but cannot be termed as abetment. What is required is a conscious, deliberate, intentional act aimed at driving the other person to die by suicide.”

The judge said that “a bank official pursuing a defaulter on behalf of a bank/financial institution, as part of his/her employment, and as a legal recourse for recovery of outstanding loans, cannot be termed as abetment and/or attract the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC”.

“Similarly, a follow-up for a recovery of a friendly loan or every reprimand by authorities, may be at work or at school, or actions of stern parents cannot be termed as abetment under Section 107 of the IPC to make out an offence under Section 306 of the IPC,” he added.

Story continues below this ad

The judge said the prosecution’s case was “contradicted” by available evidence; therefore, the invocation of IPC section 306 and the criminal prosecution were “totally misplaced and untenable”.

The high court observed that the loand repayment demands in the case had “no wilful instigation or any conspiracy or intentional aiding any person” to die by suicide, adding that there was no suicide note.

“Even assuming that the demands were made for repayment of loans, such demands cannot be termed as a proximate cause or link to the act of suicide,” Justice Bhonsale said.

The high court held that the allegations were “general and vague in nature” and therefore the alleged acts would not be sufficient to invoke IPC section 306 by any stretch of imagination.

Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.

Expertise & Authority

Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.

Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:

Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:

Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).

Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).

Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.

Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.

Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.

Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More

Tags:

abetment to suicide

Bombay High Court