‘Allegations of money demands don’t mean suicide abetment: Punjab High Court

The police booked the couple in connection with the suicides of Anil Aggarwal, his wife and two children in Jalandhar. A suicide note recovered from the spot mentioned that the family had borrowed money from eight people, including the petitioners. The police case, based on the suicide note, alleged that the family took the extreme step after being pressured and threatened by lenders demanding further repayments despite having already received the principal amount with interest.

Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate Bipan Ghai and Advocate Nikhil Ghai argued that the petitioners had been falsely implicated and “are merely running a tiffin service from their residence and are not engaged in the business of finance or money lending.”

The petitioners, who had sought cancellation of the First Information Report (FIR) registered under Section 306 of the IPC, further argued that the suicide note itself is doubtful, as it appears to have been written and signed by a single person despite four deaths having occurred. The possibility of fabrication or interpolation in the suicide note cannot be ruled out, they said.

‘Complainant unaware of actual reason for deaths’

Referring to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) inquiry, the petitioners’ counsel submitted that the complainant, Aggarwals’s sister, herself stated that she was unaware of the actual reason behind the deaths of her brother and his family and expressed that she was no longer interested in pursuing the case.

The petitioners also contended that even if the allegations in the FIR and suicide note are accepted in their entirety, the essential ingredients of abetment are not satisfied.

“There is no allegation of instigation, intentional aid or conspiracy attributable to the petitioners and mere demand for repayment of money or existence of monetary transactions, without any positive act of instigation or intentional aid, would not attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC),” they argued.

Opposing the plea, the state government counsel argued that the FIR was registered on the basis of a detailed suicide note in which the names of all eight accused, including the present petitioners, were specifically mentioned along with their mobile numbers.

‘Aggarwal and family were harassed’: Police

The counsel, representing the police, submitted that the suicide note categorically records that Aggarwal had borrowed money from the petitioners and other accused persons, had already repaid more than the principal amount along with interest, yet they continued to harass, threaten and intimidate Aggarwal and his family daily.

The government counsel further argued that although the SIT had declared five co-accused innocent, the petitioners were not exonerated during investigation and that the genuineness and evidentiary value of the suicide note are matters to be tested during trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.

What the court said

After examining the legal position governing the ingredients of abetment to suicide, the bench of Justice Batra observed, “As regards the suicide note, which is a document of one page, all that can be said is that it is an anguish expressed by the principal victim. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress at all and cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide.”

“Except for the general allegations contained in the FIR and the suicide note regarding harassment and threats, there is no specific material indicating any overt act, proximate instigation or intentional aid on the part of the petitioners which could have left the deceased with no option except to commit suicide,” added the Bench in its order.

Allowing the petition, the court held that continuation of the criminal proceedings under the impugned FIR against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. “The allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during investigation, even if taken at their face value, fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.”