Mumbai: It is the legal right of a lender to demand his money back, ruled the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court while granting relief to two men, who were accused of abetting suicide of a borrower. The HC further held that even if a lender threatens a borrower to ‘face the consequences,’ the same cannot be construed as abetment.
The significant ruling was delivered by a bench of Justices Sunil Shukre and Shreeram Modak while quashing an FIR registered against two men, accused of abetting the suicide of a 45-year-old man. “If a lender will ask for repayment, it is his legal right to demand the money back. No law can blame the lender if he will exercise his right of refund,” the judges ruled.
The bench was seized with a plea filed by the widow of the deceased, who was allegedly threatened by the accused to face the consequences if he fails to repay the borrowed amount. A month after these threats, the deceased committed suicide and left a note allegedly naming the two accused. Subsequently, the duo was arrested.
“The issue is whether the lender has exercised his right in a legitimate way or by exceeding the limits. There are two aspects. One is the threat given to face the consequences and the second is previous threat given,” the judges noted. The bench further said that the incident (of giving threats) was one month prior to the suicide.
“There is nothing on record to show that the deceased has taken any action to protest against the behaviour of the accused applicants, except filing non-cognizable report,” the bench noted. “We feel that even the alleged threat to meet the consequences falls short of fulfilling the ingredients of provisions penalising abatement of suicide.
Even if we were to believe that the accused really threatened the deceased, the latter had an option to set the criminal law into motion,” the judges said. “The deceased did not do that and, rather, he decided to run away and put an end to his life. We feel that there was better alternative available to the deceased, rather than committing suicide,” the judges added.
To defend themselves, the accused even highlighted the fact that the deceased was indebted to various persons and was booked in several cases for repeated cheque bouncing. “There is a reason to believe that deceased was in disturbed state of mind. Thus, we cannot allow the prosecution to be continued,” the bench opined.
“One can understand the sentiments of the relatives of the deceased on account of unnatural death. If they have to blame a third person other than the deceased, their allegation must fulfil the ingredients of the relevant provisions of law,” the judges said while quashing the FIR.
