Delhi High Court
Smt Sunil vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 16 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 05.12.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 16.02.2026
+ CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 & CRL.M.A. 14085/2023
SMT SUNIL .....Petitioner
versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF
DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailender Dahiya, Adv. along with
petitioner
For the Respondent : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State
along with Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv.
SI Inderjeet Yadav, PS Punjabi Bagh.
Mr. J.P. Sengh with Mr. Deepak Kumar
Mishra, Mr. Sidheesh Yadav & Mr. Prince
Mishra, Advs. for R-2 & R-3.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed, inter alia, challenging the order on
charge dated 06.01.2023 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed in SC
No. 734/18 arising out of FIR No. 351/18 (‘FIR’), registered at Police
Station Punjabi Bagh, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge
(‘ASJ’), West District, Tis Hazari Courts discharged the accused
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 1 of 18
20:23:42
respondents of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘).
2. The brief facts of the present case are as follows:
2.1. On 04.07.2018, the husband of the petitioner/ complainant
committed suicide by hanging himself from a ceiling fan at his home.
During search of the victim’s body, a suicide note was found in the
pocket of his shirt and taken into custody. Subsequently, on
10.07.2018, the FIR was registered against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
for the offences under Sections 306/506/34 of the IPC on the basis of
the statement of the petitioner. It is the case of the prosecution that the
victim used to ply his own vehicle and also run a general store at their
home. Allegedly, at the instance of the victim, Respondent No.2 had
advanced a loan of ₹15 lakhs to one Sharif Khan, who had repaid only
a sum of ₹4 lakhs. In addition to the said sum, the victim had also
taken a loan of ₹1.5 lakhs. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 used to
frequent the house of the victim regularly to demand repayment of the
loan with interest. Allegedly, Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3
(son of Respondent No.2) used to threaten the entire family and they
used to tell the victim that he would be sent to prison or kidnapped if
the loan amount was not repaid. Allegedly, the accused persons
frequently disturbed the victim through calls as well.
2.2. On the date of the incident, Respondent No.2 had telephonically
demanded the money from the victim and badly threatened him. After
receiving the call, the victim told the complainant that Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 2 of 18
20:23:42
No.2 had asked him to return the money on the same day or to commit
suicide. Allegedly, the victim told the petitioner that it would be better
to commit suicide than to get humiliated on a daily basis. Thereafter,
the petitioner along with her mother-in-law had gone to the grocery
shop. On return, when the petitioner’s mother-in-law went inside the
house, she saw the victim hanging from the ceiling fan. When the
petitioner entered the room, she found that the victim’s mobile phone
was ringing and it was Respondent No.2 who was calling the victim.
2.3. The note which was recovered from the victim mentioned that
he was committing suicide due to harassment by Respondent No.2. It
was mentioned that the victim had borrowed ₹1,50,000/- from
Respondent No.2 and given a blank cheque against the same, and
Respondent No.2 was making demands for repayment after adding
interest at the rate of 10%. It was further mentioned that Respondent
No.2 had taken lakhs of rupees from the victim, but he was threatening
to send the victim to jail. The translation of the suicide note of the
victim (extracted from a translated copy of the FIR that is attached
with the petition) reads as under:
“I Vijender Singh am taking this step due to Dal Chand Yadav. I
had borrowed a sum of Rs.150000/ – from him and in lieu of that I
had given a blank cheque who is now saying after calculating
interest@ 10% it become 25 lakhs rupees. He had taken lakhs of
rupees from me and threatened me to send in jail due to
harassment caused by him I am taking this step. The phone number
of Dal Chand Yadav is 9312202463, 9312202463 Vijender Singh
and I have no complaint against any person”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 3 of 18
20:23:42
2.4. During investigation, inquiry was made from Mohd. Sharif who
stated that he had taken a total loan of ₹15 lakhs from Respondent
No.2 at the interest rate of 10% in two trenches and returned ₹11.5
lakhs, however, the remaining amount could not be paid due to some
reason. He further stated that the victim had asked him to repay the
loan many times and informed him that Respondent No.2 was
pressuring the victim, abusing him and insulting him. He further stated
that Respondent No.2 had told the victim that if Respondent No.3
came to know about non-payment of loan, it would be worse for the
victim. Further, he stated that the victim informed him that
Respondent No.3 had threatened him while visiting his house.
2.5. During further investigation, CDR of mobile phones of the
accused and the victim were analysed and it was found that although
Respondent No.2 was in regular touch with the victim, but there were
no calls between Respondent No.3 and the victim.
2.6. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court observed that a
prima facie case had been made out against the accused persons for
the offence under Sections 506/34 of the IPC. Both the accused were
however discharged for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC after
observing that mere demand of return of loaned amount cannot be
deemed to be akin to instigating or abetting or aiding in commission of
suicide. It was observed that the material on record did not indicate
any overt act on part of the accused which fell within the meaning of
abetment compelling the victim to commit suicide.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 4 of 18
20:23:42
2.7. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present
petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned
Trial Court has failed to appreciate that it was the provocation as well
as threats extended by the accused that ultimately led the victim to
commit suicide. He submitted that the accused persons constantly
harassed the victim and made his life miserable. He further submitted
that on the date of the incident as well, Respondent No.2 called the
victim and threatened him.
4. He submitted that the accused were in the business of lending
money to people and charging exorbitant rate of interest on the same,
and they used to threaten the borrowers with the help of blank signed
papers including blank signed cheques.
5. He submitted that the present case is not one of mere demand of
loaned amount. He submitted that the method adopted by the accused
to recover money, which involved harassing and defaming the victim
as well as making regular physical visits in front of his family
members, pushed the victim to commit suicide. He submitted that the
same is also evident by the fact that even on the date of the incident,
Respondent No.2 had called the victim 6-7 times and threatened him.
He submitted that the statement of the petitioner clearly indicates that
prior to committing suicide, after receiving one such call from
Respondent No.2, the victim had told her that it was better to commit
suicide than to live such a humiliating life. He submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 5 of 18
20:23:42
suicide note also specifically mentions that the victim committed
suicide due to harassment by Respondent No.2.
6. He submitted that the learned Trial Court was only required to
see as to whether a prima facie case is made out and not conduct a
mini trial.
7. The learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that
the learned Trial Court has rightly discharged the said accused for the
offence under Section 306 of the IPC. He submitted that the only
allegation against the accused is of pestering the victim for return of
the loaned amount and mere vague or bald allegations of harassment
in this regard are not sufficient to make out the offence of abetment.
8. He submitted that no direct or reasonable nexus is made out
between the suicide and any of the alleged acts of the accused. He
submitted that it is alleged that the victim was threatened that he will
be sent to jail for non-payment of dues, however, the same is also not
sufficient to frame charge of abetment of suicide as the victim had the
option of availing his remedies in law.
9. He submitted that there was an inordinate delay of six days in
registration of the FIR, which indicates that the allegations against
Respondent No.3, who is not named in the suicide note, are an
afterthought.
ANALYSIS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 6 of 18
20:23:42
10. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the scope of interference
by High Courts while exercising revisional jurisdiction in a challenge
to order framing charge is well settled. The power ought to be
exercised sparingly, in the interest of justice, so as to not impede the
trial unnecessarily. It is not open to the Court to misconstrue the
revisional proceedings as an appeal and reappreciate the material on
record. At the same time, it is well-settled that the Court may interfere
if the allegations are patently absurd and the basic ingredients of the
offence, for which the charge is framed, are not made out [Ref. Amit
Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander : (2012) 9 SCC 460].
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal : (1979) 3 SCC 4, dealt with the scope of enquiry a judge is
required to make with regard to the question of framing of charges.
Inter alia, the following principles were laid down by the Court:
“10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above,
the following principles emerge:
(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to
sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been
made out.
xxx
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally
depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a
rule of universal application. By and large however if two views
are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence
produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not
grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his
right to discharge the accused.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 7 of 18
20:23:42
(emphasis supplied)
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. CBI :
(2010) 9 SCC 368, has culled out the following principles in respect
of the scope of discharge and framing of charge, while observing that
a prima facie case would depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. The relevant paragraphs read as under :
“21. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of
Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
(i) The Judge while considering the question of framing the
charges under Section 227 CrPC has the undoubted power to sift
and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been
made out. The test to determine prima facie case would depend
upon the facts of each case.
(ii) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been properly
explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge
and proceeding with the trial.
(iii) The court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece
of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of
the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents
produced before the court, any basic infirmities, etc. However, at
this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and
cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting a trial.
(iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the court could form
an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can
frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is
required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
has committed the offence.
(v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the
material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge
the court must apply its judicial mind on the material placed onSignature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 8 of 18
20:23:42
record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the
accused was possible.
(vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the court is required to
evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to
find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value
disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the
alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it
cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common
sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
(vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to
suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial
Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this
stage, he is not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or
acquittal.”
(emphasis supplied)
13. In State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao : 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1294, the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed the
parameters that would be appropriate to keep in mind at the stage of
framing of charge/discharge, as under:
“7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary
to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution
for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell
into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the
accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage,
the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the
prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are
sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet
material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the
investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima
facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against
the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such
material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing
the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if
the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the materialSignature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 9 of 18
20:23:42
there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the
offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed.
xxx
12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is
the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the
probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This
Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of
Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State
of MP v. Mohan Lal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of
evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the
charge is to test the existence of prima-facie case. It is also held at
the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive
opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the
offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative
value of the material on record and to check whether the material
on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of
trial.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to
evaluate the material only for the purpose of finding out if the facts
constitute the ingredients of the alleged offence. At this stage, the
Court ought to look at the limited aspect of whether, given the material
placed before it, there is grave suspicion against the accused which is
not properly explained. Though, for the purpose of conviction, the
alleged offences must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
15. The present case is one where the victim ex facie appears to
have committed suicide due to financial distress. The petitioner/
complainant, who is the wife of the victim, is aggrieved by the
discharge of the accused persons for the offence under Section 306 of
the IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 10 of 18
20:23:42
16. Before undertaking the task of determining as to whether a
prima facie case for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made
out against the accused persons, it is imperative to first appreciate the
law in relation to the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The
aforesaid provision reads as under:
“306. Abetment of suicide.–If any person commits suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punishable
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
17. The said provision is to be read in conjunction with Section 107
of the IPC, which deals with abetment. The same reads as under:
“107. Abetment of a thing.–A person abets the doing of a thing,
who–
First.–Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly.–Engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order
to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly.–Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.
Explanation 1.–A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by
wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a
thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2.–Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the
commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission
thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”
18. It is well-settled that the offence under Section 306 of the IPC
can only be attracted where the accused has actively indulged in
instigating, conspiring or aiding in the commission of suicide. Mens
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 11 of 18
20:23:42
rea of the accused to abet the commission of suicide is a sine qua non
for attracting the aforesaid provision [Ref. Randhir Singh v. State of
Punjab : (2004) 13 SCC 129].
19. In the case of Shenbagavalli and Ors v. The Inspector Of
Police, Kancheepuram District And Anr. : 2025 INSC 607, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has delineated the ingredients of the offence
under Section 306 of the IPC, and observed as under:
“15. ….In large number of judgments of this Court it stands
established that the essential ingredients of the offense under
Section 306 IPC are (i) the abetment; (ii) intention of the accused
to aid and instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
Merely because the act of an accused is highly insulting to the
deceased by using abusive language would not by itself constitute
abetment of suicide. There should be evidence suggesting that the
accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit
suicide.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. The petitioner’s case is helmed on the argument that the accused
persons had instigated the deceased to commit suicide by constant
harassment. In the case of Mahendra Awase v. State of M.P. : (2025)
4 SCC 801, adverting to a catena of relevant judgments, the Hon’ble
Apex Court observed that to satisfy the requirement of instigation, the
accused should have created such circumstances which left the
deceased with no option except to commit suicide. Cautioning against
dilution of the higher threshold prescribed under Section 306 of the
IPC, it was observed that the aforesaid offence appears to be casually
resorted to by the police. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasised that
conduct of proposed accused should be assessed from a practical point
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 12 of 18
20:23:42
of view. The Hon’ble Apex Court also cautioned against mechanical
framing of charges in this respect. In that case as well, the deceased
had mentioned in his suicide note that the accused lender had been
harassing him for repayment of loan. Discharging the accused, it was
observed that performing duty of realising outstanding loans cannot be
said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The relevant
portion is as under:
“17. M. Mohan v. State [M. Mohan v. State, (2011) 3 SCC 626 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] followed Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9
SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] , wherein it was held as under :
“41. This Court in SCC para 20 of Ramesh
Kumar [Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001)
9 SCC 618 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1088] has examined different
shades of the meaning of “instigation”. Para 20 reads as
under : (SCC p. 629)’20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of
instigation though it is not necessary that actual words
must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The
present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts
or omission or by a continued course of conduct created
such circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide in which case an
instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the
fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be
instigation.’In the said case this Court came to the conclusion that
there is no evidence and material available on record
wherefrom an inference of the appellant-accused havingSignature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 13 of 18
20:23:42
abetted commission of suicide by Seema (the appellant’s
wife therein) may necessarily be drawn.”
xxx
19. As has been held hereinabove, to satisfy the requirement of
instigation the accused by his act or omission or by a continued
course of conduct should have created such circumstances that the
deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. It
was also held that a word uttered in a fit of anger and emotion
without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be
said to be instigation.
xxx
23. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly
reiterated the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section
306IPC (Now Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023) to be attracted. They however seem to have
followed more in the breach. Section 306IPC appears to be
casually and too readily resorted to by the police. While the
persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold is met
should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed
against individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the
distraught family of the deceased.
24. The conduct of the proposed accused and the deceased, their
interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate death
of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of
view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life.
Hyperboles employed in exchanges should not, without anything
more, be glorified as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time
the investigating agencies are sensitised to the law laid down by
this Court under Section 306 so that persons are not subjected to
the abuse of process of a totally untenable prosecution. The trial
courts also should exercise great caution and circumspection and
should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by mechanically framing
charges, even if the investigating agencies in a given case have
shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section 306.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. It is the case of the petitioner that the chain of circumstances
along with the alleged provocation of Respondent No.2 on 04.07.2018
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 14 of 18
20:23:42
make it evident that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 pushed the victim to
commit suicide. It is stressed that the statement of the petitioner as
well as another borrower (Mohd. Sharif) shows that the accused
respondents used to recover money at an exorbitant rate of interest,
and they used to threaten borrowers that they will be sent to jail in
case of non-payment of dues. Reliance is also placed on the CDR
connectivity between Respondent No.2 and the victim as well as the
suicide note of the victim where he had named Respondent No.2 as
the reason behind committing suicide.
22. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the case of Respondent
No.3 stands on a significantly better footing as he is not named in the
suicide note and he has no CDR connectivity with the deceased. The
role of the said accused is only borne from the statements of the
petitioner and Mohd. Sharif.
23. Even so, applying the principles in the aforesaid judgments to
the facts of the present case, it is apparent that no ground is made out
to frame charges against either of the accused.
24. As has been appreciated by the learned Trial Court, the present
case is one where the instigation is alleged on account of alleged
harassment and pestering by the accused persons for repayment of
dues. The learned Trial Court has righty opined that mere demand of
return of loan amount cannot be said to be an act of instigation or
abetment. Although much emphasis is laid on the calls received by the
deceased on the day of his death and the petitioner has sought to argue
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 15 of 18
20:23:42
that the manner of demanding repayment constitutes as harassment, in
the opinion of this Court, even if the allegations are taken at the
highest, such incessant pestering still falls short of instigation.
25. Harassment in the present case is alleged on account of
exuberant rate of interest, threats of jail, visits to the home of deceased
and constant calls by Respondent No.2. In allegations, there is also
mention of a remark made by Respondent No.2 on one call, soon
before the victim committed suicide, where he asked the victim to pay
the dues or to commit suicide. Pertinently, in his suicide note, the
deceased has only mentioned the threat of jail as the reason of
harassment.
26. Insofar as the remark in relation to suicide is concerned, even if
the same is taken at the highest, such words of casual nature employed
in heat of the moment are to be seen from a practical point of view,
and the same alone does not reflect intention on part of the accused to
incite the deceased into committing suicide. Even as per the statement
of the petitioner, the remark only appears to be made in an attempt to
pressure the deceased into making payment of the remaining dues.
27. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, it is evident that the
accused were charging the same rate of interest from other borrowers
as is evident from the statement of witness Mohd. Sharif. Arguendo,
presuming that the accused were loan sharks who were involved in
charging usurious rates of interest, at best, such conduct will only
attract liability under relevant provisions governing money lending.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 16 of 18
20:23:42
The mere act of levying high rate of interest, even if predatory, does
not ipso facto amount to incitement to commit suicide, especially in
the absence of any overt act from which instigation can be inferred.
28. Merely pursuing the borrower by way of repeated calls, or
making occasional house visits where harsh words are said in the
moment, for repayment are also not sufficient to prima facie raise
grave suspicion against the accused qua instigating suicide.
29. Simple harassment is insufficient to make out a case of
abetment and by no stretch of imagination can it be said that the
accused created a scenario that left the deceased with no other option
but to commit suicide. As has also been righty appreciated by the
learned Trial Court, in the face of threats of jail, the victim had the
option of repaying the debt and facing legal consequences.
Alternatively, in case the charged interest was indeed usurious, the
deceased was entitled to refuse payment and pursue his legal remedies
in this regard instead.
30. It is imperative to appreciate that although financial distress and
‘harassment’ by Respondent No.2 (who was seeking to recover dues)
may have been the motivating factors behind the suicide of the
deceased, as is canvassed from the suicide note and statement of the
petitioner, culpability cannot be attracted against the accused in
absence of any mens rea. Even if the allegations of harassment are
presumed to be correct, in their capacity as lenders, the intent of the
accused appears to be to only pressurise the deceased to recover the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 17 of 18
20:23:42
loan amount and not to instigate the deceased into committing suicide.
As also appreciated by this Court in the case of Laxmi Jha & Anr v.
State & Anr : 2025: DHC:8234, while conduct of a person may be a
reason for the victim to take their life, in the absence of active
instigation, the said conduct cannot be equated with abetment to
suicide.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the discharge of the accused respondents for the offence
under Section 306 of the IPC.
32. The present petition is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
33. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are only
for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence
the outcome of trial.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
FEBRUARY 16, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SANJAY
KUMAR
Signing Date:16.02.2026 CRL.REV.P. 591/2023 Page 18 of 18
20:23:42
