The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, presided over by Justice Chawan Prakash, has ruled that a medical opinion citing cardiac arrest or myocardial infarction cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive proof of a natural death to quash criminal proceedings when persistent dowry harassment within seven years of marriage is alleged. Emphasizing that physical and mental torture can clinically trigger fatal conditions, the court dismissed an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) filed by a mother-in-law seeking to quash the charge sheet, cognizance order, and criminal proceedings in a dowry death case.
Background of the Case
The case arises from the death of Pratibha Yadav alias Pooja, who married the applicant’s son on May 4, 2021. According to the prosecution, the deceased was found unconscious at her matrimonial home during the night of February 18/19, 2025. She was initially hospitalized at Lakshmi Hospital Trauma and Critical Care in Firozabad with symptoms of fever, headache, and seizures, before being shifted to Ujala Cygnus Rainbow Hospital in Agra on February 19, 2025. Despite medical treatment in the Neuro ICU, she suffered cardiac arrest and passed away on February 25, 2025.
Following her death, the deceased’s brother lodged a Zero FIR, which was subsequently transferred and registered as Case Crime No. 109 of 2025 at Police Station Tundla, District Firozabad. The police filed a charge sheet on September 10, 2025, against the mother-in-law, Nirmala Devi, under Sections 80(2), 85, 61, and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, took cognizance of the offences on January 3, 2026. The applicant thereafter approached the High Court to quash the charge sheet and the entire proceedings.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the applicant, counsel argued that the mother-in-law had neither demanded dowry nor subjected the deceased to any cruelty. Counsel submitted that the deceased died of purely natural medical complications, pointing to hospital records and an MRI that suggested viral encephalitis and meningitis. It was further submitted that the post-mortem report concluded the cause of death to be shock resulting from myocardial infarction. Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Babu Bhai v. State of Gujarat (2010), State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta (2019), and Haji Iqbal v. State of U.P. (2023), counsel contended that in the absence of bodily injury, burns, poisoning, or any external cause, the essential statutory ingredient of an “unnatural death” or death occurring “otherwise than under normal circumstances” under Section 80(2) BNS was absent, rendering the prosecution an abuse of the judicial process.
Opposing the plea, the Additional Government Advocate for the State and counsel for the informant submitted that substantial dowry had been paid under coercion, including Rs. 16,25,000 transferred via RTGS directly into the personal bank account of the mother-in-law and Rs. 7,00,000 in cash. Counsel submitted that the deceased was subjected to persistent cruelty, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home in June 2024, only returning in January 2025 upon assurances. It was specifically alleged that on February 15, 2025—days before her hospitalization—the deceased informed her mother that she had been physically dragged and assaulted by the applicant and her sister-in-law. The post-mortem also revealed contusions and abrasions on her shoulders. Citing Bhushan Kumar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2012) and Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. v. State of West Bengal (2000), the respondents argued that a post-mortem report is not substantive evidence on its own without the doctor’s oral testimony and that the allegations prima facie warranted a full trial.
Court’s Analysis and Key Observations
Evaluating the scope of inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court observed that proceedings can be quashed only where allegations taken at face value disclose no offence, and the court cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess the probative value of evidence at this stage.
Examining Sections 80, 85, and 86 of the BNS, the court observed that cruelty includes wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb, or mental or physical health. The bench noted that specific allegations of cruelty were made against the applicant by witnesses.
Interpreting the phrase “otherwise than under normal circumstances” in dowry death provisions, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab (2000), which held that “normal circumstances” implies a natural death caused by age or illness in the ordinary course. Justice Prakash made the following key observation:
“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.”
The court held that once the foundational facts of dowry death are prima facie demonstrated, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 comes into effect. Addressing the medical opinion, the court remarked:
“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.”
The bench stated that quashing the proceedings solely based on a medical finding of myocardial infarction would amount to conducting a premature trial on expert evidence, which is impermissible under the law.
Decision
Holding that the allegations of dowry demand, cruelty, and death within four years of marriage constitute a mixed question of fact and law that must be determined through a regular trial, the High Court dismissed the application under Section 528 BNSS.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Nirmala Devi v. State of UP and another
- Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 11303 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Chawan Prakash
- Date: September 24, 2026
