APHC010160222025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3457]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025

CRLP.No.1932 of 2025

Between:

Ms. Kasu Jagathi ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)

and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

1. AAHANA

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. SHAIK AMEENA REHMANI

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025

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 498-A IPC(85 of BNS) or Section 3 and 4 of DP Act against any of the petitioners. It is submitted that the 2^nd 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 submit 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 uncle