The mere reminder of contractual obligations does not constitute instigation for suicide; abetment requires evidence of mental cruelty or inducement.

Order

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J.

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of First Information Report (FIR) No.433/2018, which was registered at Police Station Anantpura, District Kota, for offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC .

2. Brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of a written report submitted by respondent No.2 on 24.09.2018. Stating in this report, it was alleged that a sale agreement in respect of a house belonging to the petitioner was executed between the complainant’s mother and petitioner for a total sale consideration of Rs.12,40,000/-, out of which, an amount of Rs.8,40,000/- was given to the petitioner as advance by the complainant’s mother and the remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid to the petitioner on or before 21.09.2018, which the complainant’s mother could not pay on time. Upon non-payment of remaining amount on time, the petitioner told the complainant’s mother that neither will she get the house nor the money given in advance will be returned, due to which complainant’s mother experienced a great deal of stress and was repeatedly saying that both, the house and the money were lost. It was further alleged that on 23.09.2018, the complainant’s mother locked the door from inside and did not open it, complainant tried knocking and shouting but to no avail as her mother did not respond and at around the same time, the petitioner made a call on complainant's mother's mobile, which was answered by the complainant and she told him not to harass her mother anymore as she was under a lot of stress. Later, people broke open the door and found the complainant’s mother hanging.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the facts mentioned in the FIR are accepted at face value, it does not establish the offence of abetment to suicide. Counsel submits that the matter is essentially a civil dispute disguised as a criminal complaint, where the complainant seeks to reclaim money previously paid under an agreement to sell the house. The agreement stated that the petitioner agreed to sell his house to the deceased for Rs.12,40,000/-, out of which Rs.8,40,000/- was paid in advance. The remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid by a specific date, with the condition that the advance would be liable to forfeiture if the remaining amount was not paid on time.

4. Learned State counsel submits that appropriate order may be passed by the Court considering facts and circumstances of the present case. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2 to oppose this petition.

5. The primary allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner repeatedly urged the terms of the agreement to the deceased. Offence punishable under Section 306 IPC , abetment to suicide, occurs when a person instigates, conspires, or intentionally aids another to commit suicide. However, the mere repetition of contractual terms in a civil transaction, without evidence of instigation or coercion leading to suicide, generally would not fulfill the criteria for abetment. In plethora of judicial pronouncements, Constitutional Courts have held that to constitute the offence of abetment to suicide, there must be clear demonstration of mental cruelty or inducement amounting to abetment, which seems absent in the present case as the facts mentioned in the impugned FIR are limited to a contractual dispute and forfeiture of advance payment. If any person commits suicide on account of civil dispute for the reason of not handling the situati