Gujarat HC quashes FIR against two lenders over a borrower's suicide: no proximate act or intent to abet, extortion not made out
The question: Whether the FIR and charge-sheet disclose abetment of suicide under Sections 306 and 107 IPC against lenders alleged to have harassed the deceased for recovery
The Gujarat High Court has quashed an FIR, the charge-sheet and all consequential proceedings against two lenders named in an FIR alleging that they abetted the suicide of a man who had borrowed on interest, and alleging extortion. Justice P. M. Raval held that, even if severe financial pressure and exorbitant interest were assumed, there was no proximate prior act showing a deliberate intent on the applicants' part to drive the deceased to suicide, as Sections 306 and 107 IPC require. On Section 386 IPC, the Court noted that the FIR did not allege the deceased was put in fear of death or grievous hurt when the signed blank cheques and stamp paper were handed over. It also found no documents to support the charges under the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, and a suicide note that spoke only in general terms of financial stress. The FIR (C.R. No. I-37 of 2018, Malviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot, registered on 09.03.2018) was lodged by the wife of the deceased. It names five accused persons, including the two applicants, and alleges that her husband borrowed money on interest from them, was pressed with threats and heavy recovery demands, and consumed poisonous medicine on 08.03.2018 and died during treatment at about 09:00 p.m. It invokes Sections 306, 386 and 114 IPC and Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011. The applicants are Khodabhai Dhanabhai Jograna (Criminal Misc. Application No. 6657 of 2018), who is alleged to have lent Rs. 4,00,000 in 2012-2013, and Kalubhai Shiyaliya (Criminal Misc. Application No. 6389 of 2018), alleged to have lent Rs. 1,50,000 against two blank signed cheques and a blank stamp paper. The FIR states that he unilaterally filled in Rs.3,00,000 in each cheque, got them dishonoured and served a statutory legal notice. Both applications were heard together and allowed.