Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 677
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
HARINATH.N, J.
Ms. Kasu Jagathi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
Decided on : 10-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : AAHANA
For the Respondent: SHAIK AMEENA REHMANI
Offences occurring outside India cannot be prosecuted domestically under BNS and the DP Act without prior sanction from the Central Government, reinforcing jurisdictional boundaries in criminal law.
Headnote:(A) BNS - Sections 85 and 208 - DP Act - Sections 3 and 4 - Challenges to registration of Crime No.194 of 2024 and filing of charge sheet - Court found that all alleged offenses occurred outside India and no part of the cause of action arose within the country, thus the FIR and charge sheet were quashed for lack of jurisdiction. The investigating officer violated court orders, leading to further sanctions. (Paras 3, 19, 21)
(B) Trial Procedure - Family Counselling - Mandatory requirement of family counselling in domestic dispute cases was ignored by the investigating officer, undermining the investigation process. (Paras 9, 20)
Facts of the case:
Accused petitioners challenged FIR based on allegations of domestic violence and harassment occurring entirely in the USA, with no jurisdictional basis in India. They argued for quashing due to violation of their rights and improper investigation.
Findings of Court:
The Court quashed both the FIR and the charge sheet, affirming that nothing in the allegations occurred within Indian territory.
Issues: Whether charges under BNS and DP Act could be sustained when alleged incidents transpired outside India; whether the investigating officer disregarded mandatory procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court emphasized that without specific allegations made in India, jurisdictional requirements were not met under the relevant laws, as outlined in Section 208 of BNS. Additionally, the investigating officer's errors violated procedural justice and discretion.
Result: Criminal petitions allowed; FIR and charge sheet quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused's residence and allegations not in india (Para 3 , 5 , 19) |
| 2. charge sheet's inadequacy and investigating officer's errors (Para 4 , 10 , 20) |
| 3. supreme court's stance on offences outside india (Para 12 , 14 , 17) |
| 4. generalized accusations in matrimonial disputes should be dismissed (Para 15 , 18) |
ORDER :
HARINATH.N, J.
1. The Criminal petition No.1932 of 2025 is filed by Accused No.2, CRLP.No.2963 of 2025 is filed by Accused No.8, CRLP.No.3532 of 2025 is filed by Accused Nos.5 and 6 and CRLP.No.3656 of 2025 is filed by Accused No.1. All these criminal petitions are filed challenging registration of Crime No.194 of 2024 on the file of Mahila Police Station, Visakhpatnam City for the alleged offence under Section 85 BNS and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. This Court granted stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.194 of 2024, vide orders dated 24.03.2025. Accused Nos.3 and 4 filed CRLP.No.861 of 2025 and the learned single Judge of this Court had quashed the case against Accused Nos.3 and 4 vide orders dated 30.01.2025.
2. However, the investigating officer has filed the charge sheet before the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhpatnam on 01.04.2025 and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence against all the accused on 21.05.2025. This Court had granted stay of all further proceedings on 02.04.2025 in CRLP.No.3532 of 2025, this Court had granted stay of all further proceedings on 04.04.2025 in CRLP.No.3656 of 2025 in Crime No.194 of 2025, as on the date of filing of the charge sheet crime against Accused Nos.3 and 4 was already quashed by this Court in CRLP.No.861 of 2025. However, the police have blatently violated the orders of this Court and filed the charge sheet while the stay passed by this Court was subsisting.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the complaint as filed or the charge sheet as placed before the Magistrate Court cannot constitute offences under Section 4 98-A IPC(85 of BNS ) or Section 3 and 4 of DP Act against any of the petitioners. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent and the accused No.1 resided in USA and all the instances of the alleged harassment as narrated in the complaint have occurred in USA, thus, the police could not have conducted any inquiry nor could the Court take cognizance of such offences which evidently happened outside the territory of India. It is submitted that Section 208 of BNS S imposes a statutory bar on the police to inquire or the Court to take Cognizance of such offences which were allegedly happened beyond the boarders of the Country. The investigating officer or the higher officials of the department ought to have obtained sanction from the Central Government before conducting any inquiry or before the Court taking Cognizance of the offence.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge sheet is the verbatim replica of the complaint and the statements of witnesses are also replication of the contents of the complaint, as such, this is a fit case for this Court to quash the charge sheet and the FIR as the charge sheet is a continuation of the complaint and that nothing is new.
5. It is submitted that accused No.2 is the sister of accused No.1 and she is residing in Australia from the year 2019 and apart from attending the wedding of accused No.1 and the complainant, she has absolutely no role in commission of any of offences as alleged. Accused No.3 is the maternal uncle of the accused No.1 and accused No.4 is the wife of Accused No.3, they took up the responsibility of performing the marriage of accused No.1 as his parents had died while the accused No.1 was young. Accused Nos.5 and 6 are the maternal uncles, accused No.7 is the wife of accused No.5 and accused No.8 is the daughter of accused Nos.5 and 7 and she is residing in USA in a different state. All the allegations are omnibus, vague and are made against the accused in a blanket manner. The cause of action if any would have ar
