Suicide for not returning money; HC allows investigation against debtor

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: Dismissing a petition by a debtor who is accused of abetting the suicide of an 80-year-old man and his 70-year-old wife, the High Court has said, “Without providing an opportunity to the investigating officer to investigate the matter and collect material, it is too early to state that no case is made out against the petitioner.”

The accused had sought quashing of the complaint filed against him by the daughter of the deceased couple. Sunita, the daughter of Sudhakar and Jayamma filed the complaint against D Dhanunjay, who happens to be the son of Jayamma’s sister. It was alleged that he was responsible for the elderly couple committing suicide.

Sunita’s parents had taken a loan of Rs 21 lakh from the State Bank of India (SBI) mortgaging their agricultural lands situated in Suggenhalli and Kottal villages in Kampli. They had lent the said amount to the accused, Dhanunjay, who in turn used to pay interest on it.

Out of the interest paid, her parents were repaying the loan to the bank as well as leading their life. When the accused stopped paying the interest, the parents had no way to repay the loan and lead their lives, so they committed suicide. On February 23, 2022, the two victims had met the accused and requested him return the amount.

He, however, failed to return it. The following day, the two victims left their house in search of a house for rent. But they did not return. On February 25, they were found to have committed suicide by hanging themselves to the window of the APMC market. Dhanunjay approached the HC seeking to quash the complaint against him.

The HC had granted a stay on the investigation. However, subsequently dismissing the petition, Justice JM Khazi said that unless the investigation takes place, the truth cannot be brought out. The HC in its judgement said, “Unless and until the concerned Police are able to investigate the matter and collect the material, it cannot be accepted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime.

The investigating officer should be provided an opportunity to investigate the matter and collect necessary material. Only after the completion of the investigation, one could be able to ascertain whether the prosecution of the petitioner should be continued or not. After the completion of the investigation, if the investigating officer comes to the conclusion that there is no material, then he may file a ‘B report’.”

Sunita in her complaint had claimed that though her father was aged 80 and the mother was aged 70 years and though they had three children, the deceased was not dependent on their children. They wanted to lead an independent life.

Though they were having agricultural property, because of their age, they were not able to do agriculture and therefore by mortgaging the said lands, they borrowed Rs 21 lakh from SBI and invested the said amount with Dhanunjay, who is running an automobile business.

The HC in its judgment noted that, “It appears when suddenly the petitioner stopped paying interest to the amount borrowed from the deceased and also refused to return the amount, the deceased were placed in such a precarious situation that they could not either lead their life independently nor repay the loan.”