According To The Chhattisgarh High Court, Merely Making Demands To Recover Loan Money Isn’t Aiding Suicide
Title:Shaila Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Decided on: 17th October, 2023
CRMP No. 1441 of 2017
CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Introduction
According to the Chhattisgarh High Court, merely making demands to retrieve a loan amount would not be deemed as aiding and abetting suicide. The court said that anyone who has provided a loan would undoubtedly want to see it returned.
Facts of the Case
The current petitioner was introduced to a government plan related to Prime Minister Vikas Kaushal plan by the deceased’s husband, Naresh Yadav, a government teacher. The petitioner gave the deceased woman’s husband roughly Rs. 10 lakhs. After that, the decedent’s husband dishonestly failed to return his share of the funds to the relevant institution, which included the institution of the petitioner. When the petitioner asked the deceased woman’s husband, Yadav, to return the money he had taken from her, he stopped answering her calls and messages.
After that, the petitioner allegedly threatened the deceased’s husband with penalties, and the deceased, offended by the threat, ingested something poisonous. In light of this, the prosecution filed a charge sheet against the petitioner alleging an infraction under IPC section 306. The petitioner sought the High Court to contest the same.
Courts analysis and decision
In the current case, the question is whether a prima facie case for an alleged offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner, even if all of the data on record is deemed to be accurate and truthful. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution to show that the defendant assisted in the suicide, which is what Section 107 of the IPC defines as.
The Court Observed, “In the present case, there is no material on record that the petitioner in any manner instigated or engaged in any conspiracy or intentionally aided the deceased for commitment of suicide.”
“Even if the prosecution version is taken as true and correct, there is no material on record to establish that the petitioner had adopted any coercive methods to recover her loan amount. Further, if there was any demand made by the petitioner, that cannot be treated as abetment as any person who has given loan would certainly like to get it back.” The Court added further.
With this, the Section 482 plea was allowed
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aashi Narayan