Non-Disbursal Of Sanctioned Loan Does Not Amount To Abetment To Suicide: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad recently held that merely because the finance company did not disburse a sanctioned loan amount for want of procedural requirements and/or demanded processing fees or took one instalment in advance, and the loan applicant commits suicide, the said firm or its employees, then cannot be booked for abetment of his suicide or defamation.A division bench...
The Bombay High Court bench at Aurangabad recently held that merely because the finance company did not disburse a sanctioned loan amount for want of procedural requirements and/or demanded processing fees or took one instalment in advance, and the loan applicant commits suicide, the said firm or its employees, then cannot be booked for abetment of his suicide or defamation.
A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Hiten Venegavkar said that the act of the finance company's employees cannot amount to 'instigation.'
"The petitioners are alleged to have delayed disbursement and sought deposits by way of loan processing fee and first installment amount. However, these acts do not constitute the important element of abetment i.e. 'instigation' within the meaning of Section 107 of Indian Penal Code (IPC)," the judges observed in the judgment delivered on September 4.
The bench noted that there were no allegations against the petitioners uttering any word or committing any positive act or performing any positive act which can be said to have intended to provoke or push the deceased for committing suicide.
"On the contrary, the record reveals that the loan proposal was submitted for third party verification and the same was received with the negative report. This justifying the non disbursement of the loan amount. Act of the deceased in committing suicide, however, tragic itself seems to be an independent decision of his sense of frustration. If the construction of the house remains incomplete due to non-availability of funds, then it cannot cause instigation for suicide. Deceased could have raised money from other sources. Non-disbursement of sanctioned loan cannot cause defamation," the bench held.
According to the prosecution case, the petitioners - four employees of one Nivara Housing Finances, were booked by a complaint lodged by the widow of one Krushna Mane, who committed suicide as the petitioners did not disburse the loan amount of Rs 6.50 lakhs, as applied by the deceased for constructing the house. It was alleged that the petitioners even after issuing a loan sanctioning letter, did not disburse the amounts and instead demanded loan processing fees and even an advanced instalment.
The complaint alleged that the deceased paid Rs 70 thousand as loan processing fees and Rs 1,600 as the advance instalment and yet they were not given the loan amount. This non-disbursement left construction of the house incomplete and resulted in humiliation to the deceased in society and created unbearable mental agony for which on March 26, 2023, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself.
Noting the facts of the case, the bench stated that the delay of two months in lodging the FIR in the instant case, suggested that the criminal complaint was lodged after reflection and may therefore, not represent the immediate and clear truth of evidence.
"In order to sustain the charge of abetment of suicide, there must be intentional aiding or direct provocation. Petitioners who are mere employees in a finance company and the allegations of non disbursement of a loan in the light of procedural requirements, or even demanding processing fee, or taking one installment of the loan in advance cannot be amount to abetment. There is absolutely nothing available on record as the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed which remotely suggest that there was a mens rea or direct act of any of the petitioners of instigation," reads the order authored by Justice Venegavkar.
Further, the order stated, "The petitioners have neither instigated nor conspired with intentionally aided to the deceased in committing suicide. The causal link between their acts and the suicide is absent. Thus, we are of the view that if prosecution is allowed to continue against the petitioners, would amount to abuse of process of law."
With these observations, the bench quashed the FIR.
Appearance:
Advocate NS Ghanekar appeared for the Applicants.
Additional Public Prosecutor PR Bharaswadkar represented the State.
Advocate Ajinkya Joshi represented the Complainant.
Case Title: Vishal Bhanudas Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 562 of 2024)