HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9746 of 2026 Court No. - 81 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Sri Pankaj Sahni, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, and perused the record. 1. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 25.10.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 08.01.2026 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1764 of 2026 (State Vs. Ashok Kumar Dharma), arising out of Case Crime No.0304 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S., Police Station Pallavpuram, District Meerut, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased, Nikita Dharma, was residing with the applicant in a rented accommodation. It is alleged that the applicant represented himself to be divorced, developed a relationship with the deceased and thereafter assaulted and threatened her and pressurised her in relation to her property and ornaments. It is further alleged that on 03.05.2025, the applicant and other accused persons assaulted the husband of the informant and threatened him and that on 04.05.2025, at about 4.00 a.m., the informant received information regarding the death of her mother. 3. The alleged occurrence took place on 03/04.05.2025, whereas the FIR was lodged on 26.09.2025 pursuant to an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the inquest was conducted on 04.05.2025, in which the applicant participated as an inquest witness, and at that stage, the witnesses stated the cause of death to be heart attack. It is further submitted that the post-mortem conducted on the same day disclosed no external injury and that the cause of death could not be ascertained, whereupon the viscera was preserved. 5. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ashok Kumar Dharma .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Learned counsel further submits that the viscera report dated 19.08.2025 detected aluminium phosphide, but the investigation does not disclose any material showing that the applicant administered the poison to the deceased or compelled, induced or facilitated her to consume it. It is also submitted that no poisonous substance, container or wrapper was recovered and no suicide note was found. 6. Learned counsel has also referred to the statements of the landlord, Virendra Singh, his wife, Pinki, and other witnesses and submits that none of them witnessed the applicant administering poison to the deceased or causing any physical injury to her. 7. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 oppose the application and submit that the informant has specifically alleged assault, threats and pressure upon the deceased in relation to her property and ornaments. It is further submitted that aluminium phosphide was detected in the viscera and, upon investigation, material connecting the applicant with the death was found. Accordingly, the charge-sheet and cognizance order are stated to be justified. 8. By order dated 12.08.2026, this Court directed the Investigating Officer to appear in person and explain the circumstances in which the charge-sheet under Section 105 B.N.S. was submitted against the applicant. Thereafter, by order dated 10.09.2026, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, was directed to communicate the said order to the concerned Investigating Officer and ensure his appearance. 9. In compliance thereof, the Investigating Officer has filed his affidavit, which has been perused. 10. The post-mortem report dated 04.05.2025 records that no external injury was found on the body of the deceased and that the cause of death could not be ascertained. The viscera was accordingly preserved and sent for chemical examination. 11. The viscera report dated 19.08.2025 detected aluminium phosphide. The said finding is a material circumstance regarding the cause of death. However, detection of poison in the viscera, by itself, does not establish that it was administered by the applicant. 12. The material placed before the Court does not disclose any witness who saw the applicant administering aluminium phosphide to the deceased. There is also no recovery of the poisonous substance, its container or wrapper, nor any suicide note. 13. The statements of Virendra Singh and Pinki indicate that the applicant informed them that the deceased had consumed something and was lying inside the house. These statements may be relevant to the circumstances following the occurrence, but do not, by themselves, 14. NA528 No. 9746 of 2026 2 establish administration of poison by the applicant. The other statements placed on record also do not disclose that any witness saw the actual administration of poison or any physical assault upon the deceased. 15. The allegations regarding assault, threats and property-related pressure undoubtedly required investigation. However, the said allegations could not, by themselves, establish the offence under Section 105 B.N.S. unless a cogent nexus between the alleged conduct of the applicant and the death of the deceased was established. 16. The delay in lodging the FIR, from 03/04.05.2025 to 26.09.2025, was also a circumstance requiring proper assessment during investigation. 17. The counter affidavit of the State does not satisfactorily explain what specific medical, forensic or circumstantial evidence was collected to establish that the applicant administered the poison or otherwise caused the death of the deceased. 18. The Court finds that material aspects relating to the source of aluminium phosphide, its manner of administration, the circumstances in which it was consumed, the possibility of self-administration or administration by another person, and the nexus of the poison with the applicant have not been investigated in their proper perspective. 19. In the circumstances, the investigation appears to have been conducted in a rather lackadaisical manner and does not inspire confidence with regard to the cause, manner and circumstances of the death. 20. Since the matter involves the death of a person, in the interest of justice, it is necessary that the matter be looked into afresh by a competent Investigating Officer. 21. Accordingly, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, is directed to entrust Case Crime No.0304 of 2025, Police Station Pallavpuram, District Meerut, to a competent senior police officer, preferably not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, other than the officer who conducted the earlier investigation, for fresh investigation in accordance with law. 22. The fresh Investigating Officer shall independently examine the entire material, including the post-mortem report dated 04.05.2025 and viscera report dated 19.08.2025, and obtain appropriate medical/forensic opinion, wherever necessary. The investigation shall specifically examine the source and manner of procurement and administration of the poison, the possibility of self-administration or administration by another person, the availability or recovery of the container/wrapper, and all relevant medical, forensic, electronic and circumstantial evidence. 23. NA528 No. 9746 of 2026 3 The allegations regarding assault, threats and property-related pressure and the statements of all relevant witnesses shall also be independently examined. The fresh investigation shall be conducted fairly, objectively and without any preconceived notion regarding the guilt or innocence of the applicant or any other person. 24. After completion of the fresh investigation, the Investigating Officer shall submit an appropriate report before the competent court in accordance with law. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut, shall personally ensure that the fresh investigation is conducted fairly, effectively and expeditiously. The fresh investigation shall, preferably, be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 25. In view of the direction for fresh investigation, the charge-sheet dated 25.10.2025 and cognizance/summoning order dated 08.01.2026 are hereby quashed. The competent court shall proceed in accordance with law on the basis of the report submitted pursuant to the fresh investigation. 26. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the necessity of fresh investigation and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the applicant. 27. With the aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of. The personal appearance of I.O. Ramesh Chandra Sharma is exempted unless otherwise called for. 28. September 21, 2026 pks NA528 No. 9746 of 2026 4 (Madan Pal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad