Allahabad High Court rejects criminal liability based solely on property ownership.

The Allahabad High Court has quashed the chargesheet and criminal proceedings against a Kanpur Nagar landlord accused of causing the death of his tenant, a student preparing for the IIT entrance examination, who died of suspected carbon monoxide poisoning inside a bathroom fitted with a gas geyser, holding that mere ownership of the premises cannot create criminal liability in the absence of a specific negligent act.

Justice Saurabh Srivastava passed the order on September 2 while allowing an application filed by Avdhesh Singh under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [earlier Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)], seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated September 7, 2025, and the cognizance/summoning order dated November 15, 2025, in a case registered at Kakadev police station.

Death of IIT aspirant in rented accommodation

According to the FIR lodged by one Santosh Kumar Gupta on January 9, 2025, his son had been residing as a tenant in Avdhesh Singh's house in Kanpur Nagar for about eight months while preparing for the IIT examination. On December 1, 2025, he received information that his son's body had been found inside the bathroom of the rented premises under suspicious circumstances. The FIR alleged that a gas geyser installed in the bathroom, coupled with poor ventilation, may have led to the emission of carbon monoxide gas, resulting in the student's death by asphyxiation.

Following investigation, police filed a chargesheet against the applicant under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) [corresponding to Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)], which deals with causing death by negligence, and the trial court took cognizance of the offence on November 15, 2025.

Notably, court recorded that despite efforts by the police, the whereabouts of Santosh Kumar Gupta, arrayed as opposite party no. 2, could not be traced at the address mentioned in the FIR, compelling the court to decide the matter on the basis of material already on record.

Arguments before the court

Counsel for the applicant, advocates Gyan Prakash Singh and Prabhakant Singh, argued that the material on record did not disclose any rash or negligent act attributable to their client and that continuing the proceedings, without any specific allegation linking him to the incident, would amount to an abuse of the process of court.

The state's counsel opposed the plea, relying on the post-mortem report, which attributed the death to inhalation of carbon monoxide, and contended that the issues raised by the applicant involved disputed questions of fact that could only be examined through trial.

No proximate link to establish negligence

Examining the record, Justice Srivastava observed that for an offence under Section 106 BNS to be made out, there must be prima facie material showing a rash or negligent act with a direct and proximate nexus to the death, and that the mere occurrence of death on the applicant's premises was not sufficient by itself.

Court noted that there was nothing on record to suggest the geyser was installed in violation of safety norms, that it was defective to the applicant's knowledge, or that any prior complaint about leakage, malfunctioning or ventilation had ever been made to him during the tenant's eight-month stay.

"In the absence of such material, an inference of criminal negligence cannot be drawn merely because the unfortunate incident occurred in a bathroom situated in the applicant's house," the order stated, adding that criminal law could not be set in motion on mere conjecture.

Holding that mere ownership of premises cannot create vicarious criminal liability for an accidental death without a legally attributable negligent act or omission, court concluded that the essential ingredients of Section 106 BNS were not prima facie made out against the applicant.

Relief granted

Accordingly, the high court quashed the chargesheet dated September 7, 2025, the cognizance order dated November 15, 2025, and the entire criminal proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar, and allowed the application.

Case Title: Avdhesh Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another

Order Date: September 2, 2026

Bench: Justice Saurabh Srivastava

Tags: