Allahabad High Court

ASHOK KUMAR DHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 20 September 2026
Bench: MADAN PAL SINGH

Holding

The Court held that the investigation was deficient and, in the interest of justice, quashed the charge‑sheet and cognizance order, directing a fresh investigation.

Summary

The applicant, Ashok Kumar Dharma, filed an application under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. seeking to quash the charge‑sheet and cognizance order in a murder case arising from the death of Nikita Dharma. The prosecution alleged that the applicant assaulted and threatened the deceased and that aluminium phosphide detected in her viscera indicated his involvement in her death. The defence highlighted that the inquest and post‑mortem showed no external injuries, the cause of death was undetermined, and there was no evidence that the applicant administered the poison. The Court found that the investigation failed to establish a nexus between the applicant and the poisoning, that key forensic evidence was not properly examined, and that the delay in filing the FIR further weakened the case. Consequently, the Court quashed the charge‑sheet and cognizance order and directed a fresh investigation by a senior officer, without expressing any opinion on the applicant’s ultimate guilt.

Issues considered

Whether the charge‑sheet and cognizance order under Section 105 B.N.S. can stand in the absence of evidence linking the applicant to the death.
Whether the investigation complied with the requirements of Section 528 B.N.S.S. for a fair and complete inquiry.
Whether a fresh investigation is warranted due to deficiencies in the original investigation and the delay in filing the FIR.

Legislation cited

B.N.S. — s. 105
B.N.S.S. — s. 173(4), 528

Subjects

quash
charge-sheet
fresh investigation
aluminium phosphide poisoning
Section 105
Section 528
delay in FIR
forensic evidence
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9746 of 2026

Ashok Kumar Dharma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 81
HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.
NA528 No. 9746 of 2026
2

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. In compliance thereof, the Investigating Officer has filed his affidavit,
which has been perused.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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,
NA528 No. 9746 of 2026
3

establish administration of poison by the applicant.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. The delay in lodging the FIR, from 03/04.05.2025 to 26.09.2025, was
also a circumstance requiring proper assessment during investigation.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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.
NA528 No. 9746 of 2026
4

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.

(Madan Pal Singh,J.)
September 21, 2026
pks

Digitally signed by :-
PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…