MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday quashed a first information report (FIR) against city-based businessman Nishit Patel who was accused of instigating the suicide of his friend. Patel’s wife had loaned ₹25 lakh to the deceased, who owned a shop in Bandra, and Patel was named in the FIR as the suicide note mentioned him pressuring the deceased to pay the interest.
Patel, a manufacturer of electrical control panels for over 20 years, had approached the court after the Khar police filed a chargesheet against him based on the suicide note and a statement of the deceased’s employee.
Patel and his family had good relations with the family of the deceased, who had been running a shop in Bandra selling household articles for more than 50 years. He would often advance
loans to the deceased and his son via loan agreements. On October 27, 2015, Patel’s wife loaned ₹25 lakh to the deceased – though the loan was advanced without a written agreement, it was made part of an agreement in March 2017.
Around three months later, in July 2017, the shop owner died by suicide. In December 2017, his wife found his suicide note, which named nine persons including Patel as responsible for his taking the extreme step.
Patel was “very harsh in collecting his interest money, did not cooperate at all,” the suicide note read.
The Khar police registered an FIR against Patel based on a complaint by the deceased’s wife.
During investigation, the deceased’s employee told the police that his boss had borrowed a large sum from Nishit Patel.
“Every time Patel visited the store, my boss repeatedly requested him to reduce the interest rate, still he did not reduce the interest rate,” the employee said in his statement.
The prosecution, relying on the above evidence, filed charges of instigating the shopkeeper’s suicide against the businessman.
The division bench of justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale referred to recent judgements by the Supreme Court including in Prakash and others vs State of Maharashtra, which clarified that to attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it was important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused in close proximity to the commission of suicide.
“Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide,” the Supreme Court had held.
Mens rea (Latin for “guilty mind”) refers to criminal intent, or the state of mind statutorily required to convict an accused for a particular crime.
The division bench then quashed the FIR against Patel, saying, “We do not find that the petitioner who had given loan to the deceased by executing a loan agreement had, in any way, the requisite mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.”