Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8330
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
N. HARINATH, J
Ms. Kasu Jagathi – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: AAHANA
For the Respondents: SHAIK AMEENA REHMANI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Indian courts cannot inquire into or try offences committed outside India related to domestic violence without prior sanction from the Central Government, emphasizing procedural strictness for jurisdiction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A - The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 - Allegations of domestic violence and dowry related offences occurring outside India - Court emphasized jurisdictional limitations, stating, "no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government" (para 20) - The court highlighted the failure of the investigating officer to adhere to previous stay orders and the need for mandatory family counselling before investigation. (Paras 2, 19, 20)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court recognized that the entire cause of action arose outside India, rendering local jurisdiction inappropriate, reinforcing the legal precedent presented. (Paras 14, 15, 20)
(C) Procedural Violations - The investigating officer's disregard for court orders and preconditions constituted willful disobedience and led to questions of contempt. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitions seek to quash criminal charges under IPC and the DP Act related to alleged domestic abuse during the petitioners' stay in the U.S., post-marriage. (Para 1)
Findings of Court:
The court noted the absence of local jurisdiction as the entirety of the claims arose out of conduct outside India, resulting in quashing of proceedings. (Para 21)
Issues: The primary issues included whether the court held jurisdiction over offences alleged to occur outside India and the procedural validity of the charge sheet filed against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without prior governmental sanction, Indian courts lack jurisdiction over offences committed overseas, affirming the importance of compliance with statutory requirements before proceeding with such cases. (Para 20)
Result: Criminal petitions allowed and the FIR along with the associated charge sheet were quashed (Para 22).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to registration of offences. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against jurisdiction and charges. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. review of charge sheet and court's authority. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 11) |
| 4. legal precedent on extraterritorial offences. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court's findings and reprimand. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 6. final order quashing fir and charge sheet. (Para 21 , 22) |
COMMON ORDER :
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 BNSS 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
