The absence of mens rea and clear evidence of abetment under Section 306 of IPC led to the discharge of the petitioner.

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.36253 of 2024 in S.C.No.426 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition seeking discharge from the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was subjected to mental torture by A1 to A4 in repaying the loan borrowed by him. The deceased had sought help from A5 to procure a loan from the bank so as to repay the said loan amount. However, A5 also failed to arrange the loan and as such, he committed suicide by hanging himself in a private hotel.

3. Initially, the respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.961 of 2008 for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the offence was altered to Section 306 of IPC against five accused persons. After completion of investigation, the case was pending for committal in PRC No.183 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. A1 to A4 filed quash petitions before this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.14892, 15932 and 15959 of 2010, and this Court, by an order dated 30.11.2017, allowed all the petitions and quashed the entire proceedings against A1 to A4. Thereafter, the Trial Court had taken cognizance in S.C.No.426 of 2024 as against the petitioner alone. When the matter was pending for framing of charges, the petitioner filed an application seeking discharge from the charge under Section 306 of IPC, which was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the deceased did not even borrow any loan from the petitioner. Even according to the prosecution, the deceased had borrowed a loan from A1 to A4 and failed to repay the same. However, the petitioner has been falsely implicated as an accused. Further, the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the deceased to arrange loan except that the petitioner did not do anything to abet the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, no charge is made out as against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The Trial Court, without considering the same, mechanically dismissed the application seeking discharge the petitioner from the charges.

5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

appearing for the respondent submitted that the deceased had left behind a suicide note dated 19.10.2008, and thereafter, committed suicide by hanging himself on 20.10.2008. Admittedly, the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the deceased to arrange a loan from the bank. However, after receiving the said amount as commission, the petitioner failed to arrange the loan and as such, the deceased was not able to repay the loan amount, which was borrowed by him. Therefore, he ended his life by suicide. There are materials to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition seeking discharge and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. There are totally five accused, in which, the petitioner is arrayed as A5. The entire proceedings was already quashed by this Court by an order dated 30.11.2017 in Crl.O.P.Nos.14892, 15932 and 15959 of 2010 against A1 to A4. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased borrowed a loan from A1 to A4 and subsequently failed to repay the same. In order to settle the loan amount, the deceased approached the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as A5, to arrange loan f