Gujarat HC quashes FIR against two lenders over a borrower's suicide: no proximate act or intent to abet, extortion not made out

The Court began with the settled position that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code is used sparingly, to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and set out the categories in paragraph 102 of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. It described the dispute as one arising from money borrowed on interest, with demands for principal and high interest leading to verbal disputes and aggressive recovery attempts.

On Section 306 IPC, the Court said the ingredients of abetment under Section 107 must be met: an active, positive and intentional act of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid with a direct nexus and proximity to the suicide. Harassment or persistent recovery demands, without a specific guilty mind to drive the person to end his life, do not by themselves amount to abetment. It reproduced paragraphs 25 to 27 of Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 6 SCC 233, on the need for a proximate last act and for mens rea. Applying this, it held that even if the applicants exerted severe financial pressure or demanded exorbitant interest, there was no proximate prior act showing deliberate intent to force the deceased to suicide.

On Section 386, extortion under Section 383 needs the victim to be dishonestly induced, while in fear of injury, to deliver property. The signed blank cheques and stamp paper were given as security when the loans were taken, and the FIR did not allege fear of death or grievous hurt at that time. Later dishonour of cheques or Section 138 notices does not turn a loan recovery dispute into extortion. For Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Money-Lenders Act, the record had only vague oral assertions in the FIR and no documents, bank statements or financial records of extortionate interest paid.

The Court found that the suicide note on record contained only general references to financial stress, with names and phone numbers of creditors, and no specific overt act, threat or provocation by the applicants near the incident. For the applicant in No. 6657 of 2018, the last transaction was in 2011-2012. Past criminal antecedents cannot replace the statutory ingredients. The complainant's affidavits, recorded by the Court, said the dispute was personal, had been resolved through family intervention, and that she had no objection to quashing. Counsel for both applicants told the Court that she later resiled from that stand.

On the charge-sheet papers and the FIR, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would be a clear abuse of process and that the case falls within parameters (1), (3), (5) and (7) of Bhajan Lal. Both applications were allowed. The FIR, the charge-sheet and all consequential criminal proceedings were quashed and set aside qua the applicants, and the Rule was made absolute.