Calling Debtor For Loan Repayment Not Abetment Of Suicide : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that making a phone call to the debtor for the return of his money would not be a ground to prosecute a creditor for an offence of abetment to commit suicide. “if a creditor makes a phone call to the debtor for return of his money that being a lawful act, it cannot on its own constitute a ground to prosecute the creditor.”, observed a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan, while quashing an abetment to suicide case (Section 306 IPC) against a creditor, whose 40 phone calls to the debtor demanding return of his money, led the debtor to commit a suicide. The case arose from an FIR registered in Gujarat, where the deceased allegedly died by suicide after being unable to repay debts owed to multiple creditors. A suicide note recovered from the deceased named nine persons, including the appellant, accusing them of threatening him for repayment. During investigation, the prosecution relied heavily on call detail records (CDR), which showed that the appellant had made about 40 phone calls to the deceased over six months. Based on this, the police concluded that persistent harassment drove the deceased to suicide. Aggrieved by the High Court's refusal to quash the proceedings, the accused moved to the Supreme Court. Setting aside the impugned order, the Bench observed that the call detail records (CDR), heavily relied upon by the prosecution to implicate the appellant, had little evidentiary value in the absence of specific material. The Court noted that the suicide note lacked essential particulars regarding the nature of the alleged threats, the time and place at which they were made, and the persons responsible. It further pointed out that although the note named nine individuals, it failed to attribute any specific role or act of abetment to any of them. “As far as the suicide note is concerned, we find that it lacks material particulars regarding the nature of those threats and the time and place when those threats were extended. Moreover, the suicide note indicts as many as accused without specifying the role of any one of them. It is not the case of the prosecution that all accused belong to one family or were harassing the deceased as a group. Further, the deceased has painted all creditors with one brush. Therefore, a trial based on such a suicide note would be a futile exercise.”, the court observed. The Court said that for prosecuting an accused for an offence of abetment to suicide, there should be a material to indicate that the deceased was beaten or physically assaulted to return the dues, however, in absence of any material it would be hard to infer that the appellant by demanding his dues abetted commission of suicide by the deceased. “…when there is no material to indicate that the deceased was beaten or physically assaulted to return the dues, we are of the view that there is hardly any material on basis whereof it could be inferred that the appellant by demanding his dues abetted commission of suicide by the deceased.”, the court said. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, and the pending criminal proceedings stand quashed. Cause Title: DHIRUBHAI NANJIBHAI PATEL LOTWALA VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 270Click here to download orderAppearance: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhiraj Abraham Philip, AOR For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Bhagwati, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Mr. Nimesh Bhatt, Adv. Mr. Md. Sadath Hussain, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Zeeshan Rizvi, Adv. Mr. S.islam, Adv. Mr. Hari Singh, Adv. Ms. Nikita Kumari, Adv. Mr. Md Irshad Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Padmavathi Yakama, Adv.Related - 'Abetment Of Suicide' Offence Can't Be Invoked Only To Assuage Feelings Of Family; High Time To Sensitise Police : Supreme Court

Calling Debtor For Loan Repayment Not Abetment Of Suicide : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

In the absence of proof of physical assault or coercion for debt recovery, a prosecution for an offence of abetment to suicide can't be sustained, the Court observed.

Tags