Demanding Loan Repayment Does Not Amount To Abetment Of Suicide: MP HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has held that a mere demand for repayment of a loan, even if accompanied by pressure, cannot by itself amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, unless there is clear evidence of instigation, intentional aid, or mens rea on the part of the accused.

Justice Pushpendra Yadav was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by Rinku Lodha challenging the order of the Sessions Court, Guna, which had framed charges against him under Section 306 IPC in connection with the suicide of one Bhagwan Singh. The charge had been framed on December 8, 2022, based on allegations that the petitioner had harassed the deceased for repayment of a loan amount of Rs. 1 lakh.

According to the prosecution, the deceased was found hanging from a cement pillar near a temple in Guna on September 13, 2022. A mere intimation was lodged by the deceased’s brother in the early hours of the next day, wherein it was stated that the reason for suicide was unknown. Notably, no suicide note was recovered from the spot.

During investigation, statements of relatives were recorded, who alleged that the petitioner had been pressurising the deceased for repayment of money and had allegedly kept his motorcycle on the day of the incident, following which the deceased took the extreme step.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Manvardhan Singh Tomar argued that the essential ingredients of abetment were completely absent in the case.

It was contended that demand for repayment of money, even if persistent, could not be equated with instigation or provocation to commit suicide as defined under Section 107 IPC.

It was further pointed out that the charge was framed solely on the basis of statements of relatives and in the absence of any suicide note or overt act showing intention to drive the deceased to suicide.

Opposing the plea, Public Prosecutor Vikram Pippal submitted that the wife of the deceased had disclosed the reason for suicide during investigation and her version was supported by other witnesses, which was sufficient at the stage of framing of charges.

After examining the material on record, the High Court observed that even if the prosecution version was accepted in its entirety, the allegations did not satisfy the legal requirements of abetment. The Court reiterated that Section 306 IPC requires a positive act of instigation or intentional aid, coupled with mens rea, and that words or acts done without intention cannot be construed as instigation.

Relying upon Supreme Court precedents including Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court emphasised that harassment or demand for money, without more, cannot be treated as an act compelling the deceased to take his life. The Court noted that a demand for repayment would ordinarily not drive a person to suicide and, in fact, such an act would frustrate the very purpose of recovery.

Justice Yadav also observed that there was no material to suggest that the petitioner’s conduct left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide. In the absence of any direct or active act intended to push the deceased into such a position, the charge under Section 306 IPC was held to be unsustainable.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order framing charges, holding that compelling the petitioner to face trial would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Case Title: Rinku Lodha v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Order Date: 19.01.2026

Bench: Justice Pushpendra Yadav