NIRMALA DEVIversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER

                                                                  A.F.R.

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11303 of 2026

Nirmala Devi
                                                         …..Applicant(s)

                                Versus

State of UP and another
                                                    …..Opposite Party(s)


Counsel for Applicant(s)          : Raghuvansh Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     : Sudhanshoo Shukla, Taniya Pandey,
                                    G.A.


                                             Reserved On : 17.07.2026
                                             Delivered On : 24.09.2026

Court No. - 83

                       HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

1.    Heard Mr. Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the applicant,
Ms. Taniya Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No.2, Sri Jyoti
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2.    The present application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. has
been filed with a prayer to quash the charge sheet dated 10.09.2025, the
cognizance/summoning order dated 03.01.2026, and the entire
proceedings in Case No. 159 of 2026 (State v. Nirmala Devi), arising out
of Case Crime No. 109 of 2025, under Sections 80(2), 85, 61, and 115(2)
of the B.N.S., and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act, Police Station Tundla,
District Firozabad, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Firozabad.
                                    2
                                                 NA528 No. - 11303 of 2026

3.    The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows; the marriage between
the applicant's son and sister of opposite party No.2 was solemnized on
4.5.2021. On 18.2.2025, the deceased was found unconscious at the
matrimonial home during the night of 18/19.2.2025. She was initially
hospitalized at Laxmi Hospital, Firozabad, and was subsequently
transferred to Ujala Cygnus Rainbow Hospital, Agra, where she
ultimately passed away on 25.2.2025. As per the post mortem report, the
cause of death was shock resulting from myocardial infarction. The
opposite party No.2 lodged a Zero FIR, as Case Crime No.001 of 2025
under Sections 80(2), 85, 61, 115(2) BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act
against the applicant, her daughter and her son. Subsequently, the said
zero FIR was transferred to the police station having territorial
jurisdiction and was registered as Case Crime No.109 of 2025 at Police
Station Tundla, District Firozabad, under Sections 80, 115(2), 61, 85
BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act. After investigation charge sheet was filed
on 10.9.2025 and cognizance was taken on 3.1.2025.

4.    Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is the
mother-in-law of the deceased. It is further submitted that the deceased
was married to the applicant's son on 04.05.2021 according to Hindu
rites and rituals. The applicant neither demanded additional dowry nor
subjected her to any harassment or cruelty in connection therewith. On
18.02.2025, the deceased was admitted to Lakshmi Hospital Trauma and
Critical Care with complaints of pyrexia, headache, and seizures. She
was subsequently referred to a higher centre on 19.02.2025. The
deceased was admitted to Ujala Cygnus Rainbow Hospital on
19.02.2025 at 9:02 A.M. An MRI of the brain of deceased was
conducted on 20.02.2025 at Element Diagnostics, which revealed
abnormalities and led to a suspected diagnosis of viral encephalitis.
During the course of treatment, the deceased passed away on 25.02.2025
at 6:01 A.M.

5.    The death summary issued by Ujala Cygnus Rainbow Hospital,
recorded the cause of death as cardiopulmonary arrest, with a provisional
diagnosis of fever with seizures and meningitis. He further submits, that
                                     3
                                                  NA528 No. - 11303 of 2026

the deceased had been suffering from fever, chills, and headaches for a
few days before her condition progressed to multiple episodes of
vomiting, followed by altered sensorium and frothing from the oral
cavity. The deceased was managed in the Neuro ICU with antibiotics and
antiepileptic medication, and mannitol and symptomatic treatment were
administered. However, there was a sudden decline in her Glasgow
Coma Scale (GCS) score, followed by cardiac arrest. The deceased was
placed on life support, and CPR was initiated; however, despite
continuous efforts, she could not be revived. The post-mortem
examination of the deceased was conducted on 25.02.2025 at 5:00 P.M.,
during which contusions and abrasions were observed on her left and
right shoulders. The cause of death was opined to be shock resulting
from myocardial infarction.

6.    Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, it is an admitted
fact that opposite party no. 2 was informed telephonically on
19.02.2025, when the deceased had been admitted to Lakshmi Hospital.
During the inquest proceedings, the witnesses stated, that the deceased
had died due to medical complications. A Zero FIR was registered as
Case Crime No. 001 of 2025 under Sections 80(2), 85, 61, and 115(2) of
the B.N.S., and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against the
husband, mother-in-law/applicant, and sisters-in-law of the deceased.
Subsequently, the said Zero FIR was transferred to the police station
having territorial jurisdiction and was thereafter registered as Case
Crime No. 109 of 2025 at Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad,
under Sections 115(2), 61, 80(2), and 85 of the B.N.S., and Sections 3/4
of the D.P. Act. He further submits, that the death of the deceased was
purely natural and occurred as a result of a cardiac arrest arising from
medical complications. It is emphatically contended that the deceased
died due to cardiac failure and that, there is no allegation or material to
indicate that her death was caused by any bodily injury, burns,
poisoning, or any other form of external or unnatural cause.
Consequently, the essential ingredients of Section 80(2) of the BNS,
particularly that the death must be an "unnatural death" or must have
                                     4
                                                  NA528 No. - 11303 of 2026

occurred "otherwise than under normal circumstances," are not satisfied
in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

7.    Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu Bhai v. State of
Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254; State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammad
Hasanfatta, (2019) 20 SCC 359; and Haji Iqbal v. State of U.P. and
Others, (2023) 20 SCC 209. It is, therefore, submitted that the
allegations contained in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not
disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences, alleged against the
applicant. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
applicant, in the absence of the essential ingredients of the alleged
offences, would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause
unnecessary harassment to the applicant. Therefore, the present
proceedings are liable to be quashed.

8.    Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for
opposite party No. 2 have vehemently opposed the application and
contended that the deceased, Pratibha Yadav @ Pooja, was married to
Krishnakant Yadav, the applicant's son, on 04.05.2021. Sufficient dowry
was given before and at the time of the marriage, but the deceased's
husband and in-laws were not satisfied with it. The applicant received a
total sum of Rs.16,25,000 through RTGS transfers directly into her
personal bank account, comprising Rs.6,75,000 on 12.03.2021 and
Rs.9,50,000 on 27.07.2021, from the bank accounts of the deceased's
father and mother. A further sum of Rs.7,00,000 was paid in cash at the
time of the wedding, bringing the total dowry to Rs.23,25,000. These
payments were made pursuant to coercive demands by the applicant and
her family members.

9.    Learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 further submits that,
even after the marriage, the deceased continued to be subjected to
persistent dowry demands, harassment, and cruelty at her matrimonial
home. The conduct of the applicant and her family became so oppressive
that, unable to endure the continuous cruelty, the deceased left the
matrimonial home and returned to her parental home on 22.06.2024. She
                                     5
                                                  NA528 No. - 11303 of 2026

returned to the matrimonial home on 25.01.2025, following repeated
requests and assurances from her in-laws in connection with the wedding
of her brother-in-law. On 15.02.2025, the deceased informed her mother
that she had been physically dragged and assaulted by the applicant and
Sapna Yadav, her sister-in-law. On 18.02.2025, she spoke to her mother
for the last time. She was found unconscious at the matrimonial home on
the night of 18/19.02.2025. She was initially hospitalized at Lakshmi
Hospital, Firozabad, and was subsequently transferred to Ujala Cygnus
Rainbow Hospital, Agra, where she ultimately passed away on
25.02.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the death summary
mentions "fever with seizures / ?meningitis," wherein the question mark
indicates a suspected, rather than a confirmed, diagnosis. Learned
counsel further submits that it is a well-settled principle of the law of
evidence that a post-mortem report, by itself, does not constitute
substantive piece of evidence. The post-mortem report is merely a prior
statement made by the doctor on the basis of his examination of the
deceased's body. It may be used to corroborate the doctor's testimony in
court, refresh his memory, or contradict him. It is the doctor's oral
deposition in court that constitutes substantive evidence, and not the
written report, upon which a court may rely to reach at factual
conclusions. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased died
within seven years of her marriage and, according to the prosecution,
was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with a demand for
dowry, soon before her death. It is, therefore, contended that the
aforesaid facts and circumstances prima facie satisfy the essential
ingredients of Section 80(2) of the BNS. It is, therefore, contended that
the allegations made in the FIR and the material collected during the
investigation disclose the commission of the alleged offence by the
applicant, and that no ground for interference is made out at this stage.

10.   Learned counsel for applicant relied upon the following judgments
of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
     In Babu Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:
                                         6
                                                         NA528 No. - 11303 of 2026

      "32. The investigation into a criminal offence must be free from objectionable
      features or infirmities which may legitimately lead to a grievance on the part
      of the accused that investigation was unfair and carried out with an ulterior
      motive. It is also the duty of the investigating officer to conduct the
      investigation avoiding any kind of mischief and harassment to any of the
      accused. The investigating officer should be fair and conscious so as to rule
      out any possibility of fabrication of evidence and his impartial conduct must
      dispel any suspicion as to its genuineness. The investigating officer "is not
      merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the
      court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth". (Vide
      R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, Jamuna Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, SCC at p.
      780, para 11 and Mahmood v. State of U.P.)"

     In State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta (2019) 20
SCC 539, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
      "21. In summoning the accused, it is not necessary for the Magistrate to
      examine the merits and demerits of the case and whether the materials
      collected is adequate for supporting the conviction. The court is not required
      to evaluate the evidence and its merits... At the stage of taking cognizance of
      the offence based upon a police report and for issuance of summons under
      Section 204 Cr.P.C., detailed enquiry regarding the merits and demerits of the
      case is not required. The fact that after investigation of the case, the police
      has filed charge sheet along with the materials thereon may be considered as
      sufficient ground for proceeding for issuance of summons under Section 204
      Cr.P.C.
      39. For issuance of process against the accused, it has to be seen only whether
      there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of
      issuance of process, the Court is not required to weigh the evidentiary value
      of the materials on record. The Court must apply its mind to the allegations in
      the charge sheet and the evidence produced and satisfy itself that there is
      sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The Court is not to examine
      the merits and demerits of the case and not to determine the adequacy of the
      evidence for holding the accused guilty. The Court is also not required to
      embark upon the possible defences. Likewise, 'possible defences' need not be
      taken into consideration at the time of issuing process unless there is an ex-
      facie defence such as a legal bar or if in law the accused is not liable. [Vide
      Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2012) 11 SCC
      465]"

     In Haji Iqbal Vs. State of U.P. and others (2023) 20 SCC 209, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
      "15. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever
      an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under
      Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary
      jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the
      criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings
      are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for
                                         7
                                                        NA528 No. - 11303 of 2026

      wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to
      look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
      16. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the
      accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then
      he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
      necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made
      in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to
      constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the
      Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the
      purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
      alleged offence are disclosed or not.
      17. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
      many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case
      over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and
      circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising
      its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the
      Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is
      empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the
      initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the
      course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs
      have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such
      circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby
      attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge
      as alleged."

11.   On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
opposite party No.2, relied upon the following case law.

      In Bhushan Kumar & Anr. V. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Crl.
Appeal No.612 of 2012, decide on 4.4.2012, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held as under:
      "10. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly
      state the reasons for issuance of summons. It clearly states that if in the
      opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient
      ground for proceeding, then the summons may be issued. This section
      mandates the Magistrate to form an opinion as to whether there exists a
      sufficient ground for summons to be issued but it is nowhere mentioned in the
      section that the explicit narration of the same is mandatory, meaning thereby
      that it is not a pre-requisite for deciding the validity of the summons issued.
      11. Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the summoning order
      under Section 204 of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated
      because it is imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of the
      accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report
      and the materials filed therewith.
                                          8
                                                         NA528 No. - 11303 of 2026

      16. This being the settled legal position, the order passed by the Magistrate
      could not be faulted with only on the ground that the summoning order was
      not a reasoned order."

     In Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1
SCC 722, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
      "12. If there is no legal requirement that the trial court should write an order
      showing the reasons for framing a charge, why should the already burdened
      trial courts be further burdened with such an extra work... If a Magistrate is to
      write detailed orders at different stages merely because the counsel would
      address arguments at all stages, the snail-paced progress of proceedings in
      trial courts would further be slowed down... But it is quite unnecessary to
      write detailed orders at other stages, such as issuing process, remanding the
      accused to custody, framing of charges, passing over to next stages in the
      trial..."

12.   Before considering the rival contentions, it is apposite to note that
the Court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to quash criminal proceedings
in appropriate cases. However, such power is extraordinary in nature and
is to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, and only in cases, where such
intervention is necessary, either to prevent abuse of the process of law or
to secure the ends of justice.

13.   One of the well-recognised grounds for quashing criminal
proceedings is that, even if the allegations contained in the complaint or
the First Information Report are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety, they do not disclose the commission of any offence or
make out a case against the accused. At the same time, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, this Court is not expected to
undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence, assess the probative
value of the material collected during the investigation, or conduct a
mini-trial. The scope of enquiry in a petition seeking quashing of
criminal proceedings is limited to examining whether the allegations, on
a plain reading and in the light of the material available on record,
disclose the essential ingredients of the offence alleged. If the allegations
raise disputed questions of fact requiring appreciation of evidence, such
matters are ordinarily to be adjudicated by the trial court upon a full-
fledged trial.
                                         9
                                                          NA528 No. - 11303 of 2026

14.   Having heard the contending parties and after going through the
record and the law on the subject, first of all it is to be seen and analysed
whether the allegations made against the applicant prima facie disclose
the ingredients of the offences under Sections 80, 85 and 86 of the
B.N.S., it would be apposite to refer to the said provisions, which read as
under:

      Section 80, B.N.S.:
      "Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or
      occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
      marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to
      cruelty or harasser by her husband or any relative of her her husband for, or in
      connection with, any demand for dcowry, such death shall be called "dowry
      death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her
      death.
      Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-section "dowry" shall have the
      same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of
      1961).
      Section 85, B.N.S.:
      "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
      subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
      term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."
      Section 86, B.N.S.:
      "For the purposes of section 85, 'cruelty' means—
      (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
      woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
      health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
      (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
      coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for
      any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
      person related to her to meet such demand."

15.   It is, therefore, evident that one of the essential requirements for
attracting Section 85 of the B.N.S. is that the woman must have been
subjected to "cruelty" by her husband or a relative of her husband. In the
present case, there is no dispute that the applicant is the mother-in-law of
the sister of the informant and member of the family and residing with
the deceased at the time of her death.
                                     10
                                                     NA528 No. - 11303 of 2026

16.   The question, therefore, is whether the allegations made against
the applicants prima facie satisfy the ingredients of "cruelty" as defined
under Section 86 of the B.N.S. The definition of "cruelty" contained in
Section 86 of the B.N.S. encompasses wilful conduct of such a nature, as
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury
or danger to her life, limb or health, whether mental or physical. The
other ingredient relates to harassment of the woman with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for property or valuable security, or on account of the failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such demand.

17.   Thus, not every instance of disagreement, discord or ill-treatment
between spouses would, by itself, constitute "cruelty" within the
meaning of Section 85 of the B.N.S. The conduct alleged must fall
within the scope of Section 86 of the B.N.S. At the same time, it cannot
be said that a series of acts is invariably necessary to constitute cruelty. A
single act, if sufficiently grave and of the nature contemplated by the
statutory definition, may also constitute cruelty.

18.   In the present case, allegations against the applicant are specific in
nature, as per the statement of the opposite party No.2 and other
witnesses recorded during investigation. As per the evidence collected
during the course of investigation, it cannot be said that no offence under
Sections 85, 61, 115(2) of the B.N.S. is made out against the mother-in-
law of deceased, as referred in the FIR.

19.   Section 80(1) of the B.N.S. requires the following essential
ingredients to constitute a "dowry death": (i) the death of a woman must
have occurred within seven years of her marriage; (ii) such death must
have been caused by burns or bodily injury or must have occurred
otherwise than under normal circumstances; (iii) soon before her death,
the woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband; and (iv) such cruelty or
harassment must have been for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry.
                                    11
                                                 NA528 No. - 11303 of 2026

20.   The phrase "otherwise than under normal circumstances" cannot
be restricted solely to visible physical injury or fatal poisoning. The
Supreme Court, in Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab (2000) (5) SCC 2007,
held that "normal circumstances" implies a natural death caused by age
or illness in the ordinary course, if a young woman was married barely
three or four years earlier is brought to a hospital with fever, seizures
and myocardial infarction while being subjected to persistent cruelty or
mental trauma, it cannot automatically be presumed at the initial stage
that her death was purely natural. The physical strain, mental torture, or
a non visible poison or substance may trigger clinical conditions such as
seizures, cardiogenic shock, or myocardial infarction.

21.   Once the essential ingredients of dowry death are prima facie
established, particularly the death of the woman within seven years of
marriage and the fact that, soon before her death, she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative for, or in connection
with, a demand for dowry the statutory presumption under Section
118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 comes into play.
Determining,   whether    the   medical    conditions    (fever,   seizures
and myocardial infarction) were purely natural or induced or
precipitated by systematic cruelty or other extreme factors requires
examination of the treating doctors and medical experts, as well as
histopathological and toxicological examination, the viscera report and
direct testimony from witnesses regarding the proximity of the
harassment. These matters falls exclusively within the domain of the trial
and cannot be determined in summery proceedings under Section 528 of
the BNSS.

22.   Considering the specific allegations of dowry demand made
against the applicants and the fact that the death occurred within four
years of the marriage, the medical opinion indicating "shock as a result
of myocardial infarction" cannot, by itself, be treated as a conclusive
ground for quashing the charge sheet, the cognizance order or the entire
criminal proceedings at this stage. Doing so would amount
                                                                     12
                                                                                   NA528 No. - 11303 of 2026

                            to ascertaining the legitimate of the prosecution and conducting a
                            premature trial on the basis of expert medical evidence, which is
                            impermissible in law. The allegations of demand of dowry, dowry death,
                            cruelty etc., constitutes a series of events right from the day the woman
                            subjected to such acts as referred in the Sanhita and, therefore, the entire
                            facts and events further constitutes a mix questions of facts of law, which
                            can only be determined by conducted fair trial wherein the accused
                            person will have sufficient and reasonable opportunity to defend
                            themselves such as by cross examining witnesses and thereafter
                            adducing the defence evidence, if any, in accordance with law.
                            Accordingly, the present application is liable to be dismissed

                            23.         The present application is, accordingly, dismissed.



                                                                                    (Chawan Prakash,J.)

                            September 24, 2026
                            Md Faisal




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD FAISAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad