Repeated Demands for Money Do Not Amount to Abetment of Suicide Absent Proof of Direct Instigation

The applicant sought to quash FIR No. 11198047251252 of 2025 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The prosecution alleged that the deceased (complainant’s father) borrowed ₹20,000 from the applicant in 2020 and paid regular interest.

It was further alleged that despite repayment, the applicant demanded an additional ₹30,000, causing the deceased mental stress, leading to his suicide by hanging on 07.12.2025.

While the complainant filed a settlement affidavit stating he no longer wished to pursue the case.

The State opposed the quashing based on the applicant’s criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the offence.

1. Whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, establish the essential ingredients of abetment to suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

2. Whether the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS should be exercised to quash the FIR in light of an amicable settlement in a non-compoundable serious offence.

The Court applied Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (abetment of suicide), and Sections 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act, 2011.

It relied on the definition of abetment under Section 45 BNS (formerly Section 107 IPC), requiring mens rea to instigate, provoke, or incite the deceased to commit suicide.

The Court followed *Mahendra Awase v. State of Madhya Pradesh* (2025) 4 SCC 810, which held that mere demand for loan repayment does not constitute instigation.

The Court followed *Shenbagavalli v. Inspector of Police* (2025) INSC 607, emphasizing that offending actions must be proximate to the time of occurrence.

The Court observed that the prosecution provided no evidence—such as a suicide note, call detail records (CDRs), or witness statements—to show that the applicant threatened or tortured the deceased immediately prior to the incident.

The court noted that a mere demand for money does not meet the "instigation" threshold under Section 107 IPC/Section 45 BNS, as it does not inherently mean the accused intended to push the deceased to commit suicide.

While acknowledging the applicant's criminal history, the Court noted his previous acquittal in a similar case and held that antecedents alone cannot sustain a groundless prosecution.

The Court reasoned that since the essential ingredients of the offence were missing, continuing the trial would be an abuse of the process of law, despite the serious nature of the charge.

Consequently, the High Court exercised its inherent power to quash the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

The application was allowed, and the Rule was made absolute.