New Delhi, March 20 (NationPress) The Supreme Court has dismissed criminal proceedings against a man from Gujarat who was accused of instigating suicide due to alleged pressure for loan repayments, ruling that a mere request for debt repayment does not amount to abetment.

In a decision favoring Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Patel Lotwala, a panel of Justices Manoj Misra and Manmohan overturned the Gujarat High Court’s previous ruling, which had declined to annul the FIR and follow-up actions under Sections 306 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

This case originated from the tragic incident where a man in Morbi district, Gujarat, reportedly took his own life by jumping under a tractor trolley, allegedly due to the pressure from various creditors, including the appellant, concerning the repayment of loans.

An FIR was lodged at the Halvad police station in Morbi based on a suicide note found with the deceased, which identified nine creditors and claimed they had been threatening him regarding unpaid debts.

The prosecution also submitted call detail records (CDR) indicating that the appellant had contacted the deceased approximately 40 times in the six months leading up to the incident.

In court, the appellant argued that there was no evidence to prove abetment, asserting that requesting loan repayment is a legitimate action and that the threat allegations were vague and unsupported.

The Justice Misra-led Bench noted that the case against the appellant relied mainly on the suicide note and call records, neither of which sufficiently demonstrated the elements required for abetment to suicide.

“Regarding the suicide note, we observe that it lacks specific details about the nature of the threats and the timing and location of these threats,” the court stated.

The Supreme Court further remarked that the suicide note implicated nine individuals without delineating their specific contributions.

“Additionally, the suicide note names nine accused without clarifying the role of any individual. It is not alleged that these individuals acted as a group to harass the deceased. The deceased generalized all creditors without distinction. Thus, proceeding to trial based on such a suicide note would be a futile endeavor,” the apex court emphasized.

On the matter of numerous phone calls, the Supreme Court determined that such actions alone do not constitute criminal behavior.

“If a creditor calls a debtor to reclaim his money, that is a lawful act and cannot by itself serve as grounds for prosecuting the creditor,” the bench stated.

It also highlighted the absence of evidence suggesting that the deceased faced physical violence or coercion.

“In this context, there is scant material to infer that the appellant’s demand for repayment contributed to the deceased's suicide,” the Supreme Court concluded.

It determined that continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of legal process. “In our opinion, continuing the proceedings against the appellant would be a futile exercise and would constitute an abuse of the court's process. Therefore, to uphold justice, it is imperative that these proceedings be quashed,” the bench stated.

By granting the appeal, the Supreme Court overturned the Gujarat High Court’s decision, which had previously denied the request to annul the FIR and subsequent charge sheet.