Mere loan-repayment demands, without intentional instigation, do not constitute abetment of suicide.

The applicant sought quashing of FIR I-C.R. No. 11211035260095 of 2026 registered at Muli Police Station, District Surendranagar, under Sections 108, 351(3) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Money Lending Act.

The FIR was lodged after Gopalbhai Bavaliya allegedly consumed poison and died; it was alleged that he had borrowed money from several persons, including the applicant, had mortgaged agricultural land as security, and was subjected to threats and harassment for repayment.

The complainant and the deceased’s relatives, described as victims, filed affidavits stating that the deceased had borrowed money from the applicant on a friendly basis, that the applicant had waived the outstanding amount, and that the dispute had been amicably settled.

The Court nevertheless examined the merits because the case involved the loss of a human life.

It also noted that proceedings against a co-accused had already been quashed.

Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings could be quashed under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on the basis of an amicable settlement and the consent of the complainant and victims.

Whether the allegations, even if accepted at their highest, disclosed the necessary ingredients of abetment of suicide—particularly instigation, mens rea, and an active or direct act—against the applicant.

Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law when the parties had settled the dispute and the proceedings against the co-accused had already been quashed.

The Court exercised its inherent power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The prosecution invoked Sections 108, 351(3) and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 5, 40 and 42 of the Money Lending Act.

Relying on M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315, the Court held that mere financial difficulty, demands for repayment, or even abusive conduct does not by itself establish abetment of suicide; there must be evidence of intentional instigation.

It also relied on Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Lotwala v. State of Gujarat, SLP (Criminal) No. 4644 of 2025, for the principle that a creditor’s demand for repayment of a lawful debt, by itself, does not constitute a criminal offence.

Under Mahendra Awase v. State of M.P., (2025) 4 SCC 801, read with Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 and M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626, abetment requires instigation or an active/direct act, accompanied by the requisite mens rea, which creates circumstances leaving the deceased with no reasonable option other than suicide.

The Court found that the FIR primarily alleged that the deceased had borrowed money and was being pressed to repay it, including an alleged demand for an additional ₹3 lakh despite substantial repayments.

Applying the cited Supreme Court authorities, it held that demands for repayment or recovery of an outstanding loan, without evidence of a deliberate intention to provoke or facilitate suicide, do not satisfy the requirements of instigation or abetment.

The complainant and the deceased’s relatives had independently expressed their consent to quashing and confirmed settlement, waiver of the alleged debt, and absence of any continuing dispute.

Considering these circumstances, the prior quashing of proceedings against the co-accused, and the absence of material sufficient to sustain the alleged offence, the Court concluded that continuation of the prosecution would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process.

The Rule was made absolute and direct service was permitted.