The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the concept of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC and the application of the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) is made to the charge-sheet dated 29.11.2018 and summoning order dated 23.01.2019, passed in Criminal Case No. 454 of 2019, State vs. Anil Kumar alias Kala and Others, by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Dehradun, District Dehradun (for short “the case”) as well as the entire proceedings of the case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The case is based on an FIR, lodged by the respondent no. 3 (“the informant”). According to the FIR, the informant had taken Rs. 40,000/- loan from Sandeep Bansal Lala. She was continuously paying the installments, but she could not pay the entire amount. On 08.06.2018, Sandeep Bansal Lala telephonically called the informant and abused her. The informant took two months’ time to repay the loan. On 15.05.2022, the son of Sandeep Bansal Lala named Mohit Bansal visited the shop of the informant and demanded the money from the husband of the informant. Mohit Bansal abused and started beating the husband of the informant with the belt. When the mother-in-law of the informant tried to intervened, according to the FIR, she was also beaten up by Mohit Bansal. He threatened the husband of the informant that he belongs to Shamli, he would kill him. According to the FIR, Sandeep Bansal Lala had taken 10 to 12 cheques from them (the informant). They have got one cheque bounced also. He sent a notice to the husband of the informant, due to which, he was under depression and committed suicide.

4. During investigation, it is revealed that, in fact, it is Anil Kumar Singal, petitioner no. 2, who had advanced loan to the informant. His son is Mohit Singhal, the petitioner no. 1. The matter has been investigated. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against Anil Kumar alias Lala and Mohit Singhal under Section 306 IPC, on which, cognizance was taken on 23.01.2019, which is impugned herein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no prima facie case under Section 306 IPC is made out; there is no evidence which may suggest that any instigation or any abetment was done by any of the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the suicide note to argue that there are other names also in the suicide note, but they have not been implicated. But, because the petitioners took the recourse of law under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, he has been named as an abettor. It is argued that if a person takes legal recourse to redress any of his grievances, such act in no manner could be termed as abetment to commit any offence.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the suicide note to argue that there is no evidence that any report was lodged by the deceased against any of the petitioners with regard to abuse or maar peet, as stated in the suicide note. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide due to financial crisis. There is no positive act attributed to the petitioners or any of them which may suggest that they committed any offence.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the principle of law as laid down in the case of Ramesh Banshkaar @ Manju Banshkaar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Revision No. 1677 of 2015, Manish Kumar Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, 1994 SCC Online Raj. 138 and S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 190.

9. In the case of Ramesh Banshkaar (supra) also, loan was taken by the deceased, but when interest, etc. was claimed from the deceased, he felt trapped in the circle and committed suicide. Under those circumstances, the Hon’ble Court observed as hereunder:

“19. In the case at hand, it has been established prima facie that the deceased had taken loan from the revisionist/accused and he was pressuring and threatening the deceased for returning the amount, which caused seve