Demanding loan dues can’t be abetment to suicide: HC

NAGPUR: In a verdict that would bring relief to thousands of employees working as recovery agents with banks and financial institutions, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court has ruled that demanding outstanding loan amount from a defaulting person cannot be construed as abetment to suicide.
Recovery agents were often held responsible in case defaulters end their life after failure to repay the loans.Recently, many such suicides have taken place across the country after people availed instant loan from app-based companies. After being unable to repay the amount, many such debtors faced harassment from recovery agents, who publicly defamed such defaulters on social media and also called their family members and friends.
While quashing a police complaint lodged in Washim against a Pune youth under Section 306 for abetment to suicide, the HC observed that the allegations are only to the effect that the petitioner demanded outstanding loan amount from the borrower and it was part of his duty being an employee of a finance company.
“The demand of outstanding loan amount from a person who was in default in payment, during the course of employment as a duty, at any stretch of imagination, can’t be said to be intended to aid or instigate or abet the borrower to commit suicide,” said a division bench comprising Justice Vinay Deshpande and Justice Anil Kilor.
According to prosecution, P Chouhan had taken loan from Mahindra Financial Service Limited for purchasing a new vehicle. A loan of Rs6.21 lakh was sanctioned and Chouhan was supposed to pay it in four years in monthly instalment of Rs17,800. As the borrower failed to repay the amount, petitioner Rohit Nalwade started calling Chouhan on his mobile demanding repayment. Subsequently, Chouhan committed suicide and blamed the petitioner for harassment in a suicide note. The deceased’s family lodged an FIR with Shripur police station after which the petitioner was booked for abetment to suicide.
Quoting previous HC verdicts, petitioner’s counsel NB Kalwaghe contended that the prosecution should prima facie establish that the accused had an intention to aid or instigate or abet the loanee to end life.
“Abetment involves mental process of instigating or intentionally aiding a person in doing a thing. Without an act on accused’s part in aiding or abetting the deceased to end life, such persons can’t be compelled to face trial. In this case, the allegations are only in respect of demand for outstanding loan amount. It doesn’t amount to any intention to abet the borrower to end life,” he said.
Opposing his contention, additional public prosecutor MJ Khan pointed out that because of demand of outstanding loan amount, the deceased was under tremendous mental pressure, which was the cause for commission of suicide.
“We’ve arrived at a conclusion that none of the requirements of Section 306 is being satisfied. Therefore, Section 306 does not applies against the petitioner. It wouldn’t be proper to compel the petitioner to face the trial before criminal court as the same would be a futile exercise,” said the judges while allowing his petition.