view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.36253 of 2024 in S.C.No.426 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Chennai. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the petitioner is discharged from the charge under Section 306 of IPC. 12. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09.06.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order Lpp To 1. The I Additional Sessions Judge,Chennai. 2. The Inspector of Police (L &O),F-2, Egmore Police Station, Egmore, Chenani – 600 008. 3. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras. of 11 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. Lpp Crl.R.C.No.689 of 2025 09.06.2025 of 11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.689 of 2025 and
Crl.M.P.No.10462 of 2025
K.Mohanraj ….. Petitioner
Vs
The State, rep by its
Inspector of Police (L &O),
F-2, Egmore Police Station, Egmore, Chenani – 600 008.
Crime No.961 of 2008. ….. Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 r/w 442 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to
Crl.M.P.No.36253 of 2024 in S.C.No.426 of 2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Court at Chennai and set aside the order dated 04.04.2025, consequently discharge the petitioner from the offences in S.C.No.425 of 2024.
For Petitioner : Mr.Durai Kannan
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
O R D E R
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the order
dated 04.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.36253 of 2024 in S.C.No.426 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, thereby dismissing the petition seeking discharge from the charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was subjected
to mental torture by A1 to A4 in repaying the loan borrowed by him. The deceased had sought help from A5 to procure a loan from the bank so as to repay the said loan amount. However, A5 also failed to arrange the loan and as such, he committed suicide by hanging himself in a private hotel.
3. Initially, the respondent Police registered an FIR in Crime No.961 of 2008 for the offence under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the offence was altered to Section 306 of IPC against five accused persons. After completion of investigation, the case was pending for committal in PRC No.183 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai. A1 to A4 filed quash petitions before this Court in
Crl.O.P.Nos.14892, 15932 and 15959 of 2010, and this Court, by an order dated 30.11.2017, allowed all the petitions and quashed the entire proceedings against A1 to A4. Thereafter, the Trial Court had taken cognizance in S.C.No.426 of 2024 as against the petitioner alone. When the matter was pending for framing of charges, the petitioner filed an application seeking discharge from the charge under Section 306 of IPC, which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the deceased did not even borrow any loan from the petitioner. Even according to the prosecution, the deceased had borrowed a loan from A1 to A4 and failed to repay the same. However, the petitioner has been falsely implicated as an accused. Further, the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the deceased to arrange loan except that the petitioner did not do anything to abet the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, no charge is made out as against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. The Trial Court, without considering the same, mechanically dismissed the application seeking discharge the petitioner from the charges.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the respondent submitted that the deceased had left behind a suicide note dated 19.10.2008, and thereafter, committed suicide by hanging himself on 20.10.2008. Admittedly, the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the deceased to arrange a loan from the bank. However, after receiving the said amount as commission, the petitioner failed to arrange the loan and as such, the deceased was not able to repay the loan amount, which was borrowed by him. Therefore, he ended his life by suicide. There are materials to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly dismissed the petition seeking discharge and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the materials available on record.
7. There are totally five accused, in which, the petitioner is
arrayed as A5. The entire proceedings was already quashed by this Court by an order dated 30.11.2017 in Crl.O.P.Nos.14892, 15932 and 15959 of 2010 against A1 to A4. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased borrowed a loan from A1 to A4 and subsequently failed to repay the same. In order to settle the loan amount, the deceased approached the petitioner herein, who is arrayed as A5, to arrange loan from the bank. For which, the deceased paid a sum of Rs,40,000/- as commission to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not take any steps to arrange the loan, due to which, the deceased was not able to repay the existing loan amount. Therefore, the deceased committed suicide on 20.10.2008 by hanging himself in a private hotel. Hence, all the accused were charged for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
The specific charge against the petitioner is as follows :
“A5 vjphp nkhfd; uh$; vd;gth; Vw;fdnt fld; gpur;ridapy; t’;fpapy; nyhd; th’f;pj; ju jd;id ek;gp te;J ,we;J nghd mUsu;h$; vd;gthplk; fkpc&d; bgWtjw;fhf bgha;ahd thf;FWjpfis bfhLj;J. mij ek;gpa mUs;uh$;. t’;fpapy; nyhd; fpilf;Fk;. brl;oy; bra;J tplyhk; vd;W vz;zp A1 Kjy; A4 vjphpfsplk; fe;J tl;of;F gzk; th’;fp jpObud;W A5 vjphp nkhfd; uh$; nyhd; fpilf;fhJ vd;W brhd;djhy; A1
Kjy; A4 vjphpfspd; kpul;lYf;F gae;J jw;bfhiy bra;J bfhs;Sk; NH;epiyf;F js;sg;gl;Ls;shh;/ vdnt A5 vjphp nkhfd; uh$; rl;lg;gphpt[ 306 ,/j/r tpd;go jz;of;fj;jf;f Fw;wk; g[hpe;Js;shh;/””
8. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner had made a false promise to
arrange loan in favour of the deceased and received commission for the same. In order to attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, there must be abetment to commit suicide. The analysis of provision under Section 306 of IPC, there must be mens rea to abet the deceased in committing suicide. Mens rea means a guilty mind. As a general rule, every crime requires a mental element, the nature of which depends upon the definition of the particular crime in question. Although, it is not possible to assign any particular meaning to the term ‘mens rea’, the determination of its existence must be based on the specific ingredients constituting the particular offence and the expression used in the definition of the particular offence to constitute such offence.
9. In the case on hand, the question to be considered is whether
the petitioner had instigated as envisaged under Section 107 of IPC, to commit the offence under Section 306 of IPC. As stated supra, even according to the case of the prosecution, the deceased approached the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as commission to arrange loan. The petitioner was not able to arrange loan, since the deceased had already defaulted in repayment to various banks and as such, his loan account was declared as a Non-Performing Asset. Therefore, the petitioner could not able to arrange any loan on behalf of the petitioner. It is evident that the petitioner had no intention, at any point of time, to abet the deceased in committing suicide. That apart, the alleged suicide note dated 19.10.2008 reveals that it was only a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, and the deceased has nowhere alleged that he had committed suicide only for the reason of the petitioner’s involvement. Over all in the complaint, the deceased alleged that he borrowed loan from A1 to A4 and they charged exorbitant interest. In order to repay the said loan, the deceased approached the petitioner to arrange loan from the bank and had paid commission for the same. Therefore, the so-called suicide note cannot be treated as such, but only as a complaint. In fact. the deceased had also written letters to his relatives, in which there is no allegation against the petitioner or any other accused persons regarding any instigation or abetment. It is also relevant to note that the entire proceedings against A1 to A4 were quashed by this Court with the following observations.
“12.The suicide notes written by the accused closely and carefully perused. The perusal would show that all the witnesses, in the investigation have stated before the Investigation officer what they have heard in respect of the offence as alleged as against the accused. As for as the case is like 306 of IPC is concerned it could be arisen out of hearsay witnesses. The present case is concerned it is not only resting upon the statement of witnesses but it is also resting upon the Suicidal note/letters written by the victim. At this juncture the genesis of the letters written by the victim has assumed much importance. So this court anxiously puts its consideration upon the letters written by the victim. The letters are written to the superintendent of the police and another letter written to the mother of the victim. Another letter written to one Vijay, Paulraj and another letter was written to his wife. As for as the 1st letter is concern it was written with the general allegation sstated that the petitioners namely Kumar, Prasanth, Senthur Pandian and Perumal have scolded intimidated the victim and because of their activities, he was constrained to take the extreme steps in his life and committed suicide. Further he made allegations as against one Mohanraj and left some account details. When the other letters are perused no allegations were made as against the petitioners but due to financial loss in his life, he committed suicide.
13.It is relevant to hold that in the suicidal notes, the victim has not given much details or allegations or charge as against the petitioners to sustained the charge under sections 306 of IPC. Further the important aspect of abetment to commit suicide is not found in the letters. The victim has not pointed out or fixing the responsibility upon the accused that they alone are the instrumental for his suicide. When the victim himself has not fixed responsibility upon the persons who are allegedly causing the commission of his suicide, this Court is unable to fix the responsibility upon the petitioners for the commissions of suicide by the victim. The close perusal of the letters would show that mainly because the loss he suffered with business, he took the extreme decision in his life. Though it is unfortunate that some persons who involved in the offence of charging exorbitant interest rate for the money advanced as loan but that will not be show any material by merely utter in the allegation. The charging of collection of exorbitant rate of interest must be proved in clear terms. Though it is may be by way of suicidal note but the information left in the suicidal note must indicate that the abettors alone are responsible for the commission of suicide.
14.However, the considered opinion of this court the suicidal notes written by the victim have not fixed the responsibility upon the petitioners/accused as other reasons are also cited with by the victim for his suicide. Moreover the money transaction was admitted but to tackle the same several legal remedies are available including the getting assistance from the Law enforcing authorities. Further loss and profit in the business are very common that will not be taken as the deciding factor to the living life in any aspect the suicidal notes has not fixed the responsibility upon the petitioners alone, this court unable to accepts the contention of the prosecution that the petitioners are responsibility for the suicide of the victim.”
10. Therefore, there is absolutely no material to frame a charge
against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. However, the Trial Court, without considering the same, mechanically
dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner.
11. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the
order dated 04.04.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.36253 of 2024 in S.C.No.426 of 2024 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Court, Chennai. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the petitioner is discharged from the charge under Section 306 of IPC.
12. In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Lpp
To
1. The I Additional Sessions Judge,Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police (L &O),F-2, Egmore Police Station, Egmore, Chenani – 600 008.
3. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.
of 11
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Lpp
Crl.R.C.No.689 of 2025
09.06.2025
of 11
