Mere demand for repayment, without instigation or proximate acts, does not constitute abetment of suicide.

The applicant sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of FIR C.R. No. 11208002200837/2020 registered at Ajidam Police Station, Rajkot, for offences under Sections 306, 387, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act.

The FIR arose after Prafullbhai Makwana died by suicide by hanging on 20 April 2020.

A notebook allegedly found at the place of occurrence stated that the deceased had borrowed ₹4,00,000 from the applicant at 5% interest, had repaid ₹7,00,000 including interest, and was nevertheless subjected to continued demands for money.

The applicant disputed the allegations and relied on a notarised agreement recording that the amount had been advanced without interest and was repayable within six months.

He also relied on a dishonoured cheque and a pending complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the deceased and his family members.

The complainant stated that the dispute had been amicably settled and had no objection to quashing, while the State opposed the application on the ground that the allegations involved serious offences.

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Section 306 IPC, read with Section 107 IPC, requires material indicating instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid constituting abetment of suicide; a mere demand for repayment, without proximate conduct demonstrating abetment, is insufficient.

Section 387 IPC requires putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt with the intention of committing extortion, while Section 506(2) IPC requires criminal intimidation involving threats intended to cause alarm.

The Court relied on Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Notwala v. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 270, for the principle that repeated demands for repayment, absent evidence of beating or physical assault, do not by themselves constitute abetment of suicide.

The Court also considered Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, which could not be invoked where the undisputed agreement indicated that the advance was made without interest.

The Court found that, insofar as the applicant was concerned, the FIR and notebook contained only a general allegation that he continued demanding repayment after ₹7,00,000 had allegedly been paid; there was no specific allegation of instigation, intentional aid, physical assault or other proximate conduct linking him to the suicide.

Applying the rule in Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Notwala, the Court held that mere harassment or demands for repayment did not satisfy the requirements of abetment under Sections 306 and 107 IPC.

The allegations also did not state that the applicant had threatened the deceased with death or grievous hurt, or that he had caused alarm, and therefore Sections 387 and 506(2) IPC were not attracted.

The notarised agreement, whose existence and execution were not disputed, recorded that ₹4,00,000 had been advanced without interest; this, together with the applicant’s Section 138 NI Act proceedings concerning repayment, undermined the allegation that he was conducting an unlawful money-lending transaction under the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act.

Consequently, continuation of the prosecution lacked the necessary factual and legal foundation and would amount to an abuse of process.

It held that the FIR did not disclose the essential ingredients of Sections 306, 387 or 506(2) IPC against him, and that the materials did not establish an offence under Sections 5, 40 or 42 of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act.

The application under Section 482 CrPC was accordingly allowed; FIR C.R. No. 11208002200837/2020 registered at Ajidam Police Station, Rajkot, and all consequential proceedings were quashed and set aside qua the applicant.

Rule was made absolute, with direct service permitted.