Ms. Kasu Jagathi v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

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 //3// CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025 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 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 the Central Government before conducting any inquiry or before the Court taking Cognizance of the offence. //4// CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025

#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 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 arisen in USA and not in India.

#6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners that the investigating officer has willfully violated the orders of //5// CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025 this Court and filed a charge sheet, unmindful of the stay granted by this Court, this Court is inclined to peruse the charge sheet and the statements recorded which are submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners in CRLP.No.1932 of 2025.

#7. This Court is now considering the charge sheet filed and the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police during the investigation for considering to quash the charge sheet. The police have filed a charge a sheet against Accused Nos.3 and 4 against whom this Court had quashed the proceedings in CRLP.No.861 of 2025. In the charge sheet it is stated that the police have filed a counter in CRLP.No.861 of 2025 with a prayer to dismiss the petition and that orders were awaited.

#8. The investigating officer has recorded the statements of LWs.1, 2 and 3 on 08.07.2024 and on 09.07.2024 recorded statements of LWs.4 and 5, statements of LWs.6 and 7 were recorded on 10.07.2024, statements of LWs.8 and 9 were recorded on 19.01.2025 and the statements of LWs.10 and 11 were recorded on 20.01.2025.

#9. The complaint was received at 06.00PM on 08.07.2024, by the Station House Officer of Disha Police Station, Visakhapatnam City. As seen from the complaint, it is endorsed that family //6// CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025 counselling was conducted for both families and that the counselling had failed, as such, investigation was taken up. The said endorsement reflects the non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of conducting counselling in offences of this nature before taking up investigation. Admittedly, accused No.1 was residing in USA and all other accused were not Visakhapatnam for the investigating officer to summon them and conduct counselling at a short notice on 08.07.2025. The said endorsement of the investigating officer has rendered the mandatory counseling as an empty formality.

#10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor when questioned as to what prompted the investigating officer to ignore the orders of stay granted by this Court and proceeding with investigation and filing charge sheet against all the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly concedes investigating officer had committed a mistake in filing the charge sheet unmindful of the stay orders granted by this Court and in ignoring the quashing of crime against accused Nos.3 and 4.

#11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record. //7// CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025

#12. In order to verify the applicability of Section 208 of BNSS, it would be pertinent to consider the contents of the complaint and the allegations made against the accused. As seen from the complaint dated 08.07.2024, the following allegations are made ; a. The maternal uncles of accused No.1 i.e., Accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 along with wife of Accused No.3 (arrayed as Accused No.4) approached the parents of the 2nd respondent on 04.06.2022 and asked for marriage alliance with accused No.1, who was working as a Software Engineer at USA. The parents of Accused No.1 had passed away, as such, the maternal uncles took up the responsibility of the marriage of Accused No.1. b. On 04.08.2022, engagement was performed at Chandana Hotel, Boyipalem and thereafter registered marriage was performed at Bheemunipatnam Sub-Registrar Office and the marriage as per the customary rights was performed on 08.12.2022 at Chandana Hotel, Boyipalem in presence of relatives and elders. c. The complainant and the accused No.1 stayed at the house of Accused Nos.3, 5 to 7 after marriage and then left for USA on 31.12.2022. d. Accused No.1 underwent knee surgery in USA on 16.03.2023. The complainant was also unable to adjust to the weather in USA and went to physiotherapy while also taking care of the accused No.1 after his surgery at home. 1st allegation in the complaint : e. The Accused No.1 used to trouble the complainant mentally for not spending time with relatives and friends of accused No.1 when they came to see accused No.1 at their home after his surgery in USA. 2nd allegation in the complaint : f. With regard to non-spending of time in home at USA while the friends/relatives of accused No.1 came to see of Accused No.1 after his surgery, accused No.1 used to call up his sister in Australia and wife of Dr.Subba Reddy Smt. Srilatha and //8// CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025 complained against the attitude of the complainant. They in turn used to call up the complainant over phone and harass her. 3rd allegation in the complaint : g. Accused No.1 used to call up his aunt and ask her to scold the complainant, at behest of Accused No.1, his aunt also used to call up the complainant and scold her over phone. 4th allegation in the complaint : h. All the accused were in the habit of scolding the complainant over whatsapp group call and body shamed the complainant. All the accused also alleged that complainant had married the accused No.1 only to lead a luxurious life in USA. 5th allegation in the complaint : i. Accused Nos.2 to 8 used to advise the complainant that it is better to separate from Accused No.1 as they are not able to get along well as the husband wife. 6th allegation in the complaint j. Accused No.1 and the complainant purchased a house worth about rupees ten crores in USA and in the month of October, 2023, Accused No.8 who is the niece of Accused No.1 and who was already staying in USA in a different state came to the house of Accused No.1 and the complainant and that disturbances in the family arose on account of Accused No.8 staying in their house. It is also alleged that Accused No.8 used to order the complainant to consume wine and that Accused No.8 used to consume wine. 7th allegation in the complaint : k. Accused No.1 while threatening to kill himself or kill the complainant got executed a relinquishment deed over the house which was jointly purchased. 8th allegation in the complaint : l. On 27.01.2024, accused No.1 took the complainant to her sister’s house at Texas on the pretext of staying for about ten days, however, accused No.1 left the complainant at Texas the very next day by informing that he would go to his aunt’s house at Atlanta. //9// CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025 9th allegation in the complaint : m. It is alleged that accused No.1 was not contactable after leaving Texas and that he blocked the numbers of the complainant. Parents of the complainant contacted Accused No.5 and enquired about the where abouts the accused No.1. It is alleged that accused No.5 informed the parents of the complainant that accused No.1 was safe and advise the parents of complaint to inform the complainant to take up a job and live independently. 10th allegation in the complaint : n. Accused No.1 withdrew $44,000 US dollars from the joint account of Accused No.1 and the complainant and deleted her from the families whatsapp group. Accused No.1 got removed the name of the complainant from the joint account with the banker, deleted the marriage photos from Instagram account and blocked the complainant from all social media accounts.

#13. The complainant thereafter came back to India on 20.03.2024 and none of the accused responded to the calls of the complainant. It is also stated in the complaint that accused No.1 sent a notice for divorce from USA on 06.07.2024, thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint on 08.07.2024. Section 208 of BNSS reads as follows ; Section 208 : Offence committed outside India When an offence is committed outside India- (a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or (b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found or where the offence is registered in India: //10// CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025 Provided that notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

#14. In so far as applicability of Section 188 of Cr.P.C., (208 of BNSS) the High Court of Kerala in the matter of Darvin Dominic Vs. State of Kerala and another1, the High Court of Kerala was considering the quashment of a calendar case for alleged offence under Section 498-A IPC and quashed the case as the entire allegations in the complaint were allegedly committed outside India and held that the matter definitely would come within the ambit of Section 188 of Cr.P.C.,

#15. A Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sartaj Khan Vs. State of Uttarkhand2, held that Section 188 of Cr.P.C., (208 of BNSS) gets attracted when the entirety of offence is committed outside India and grant of sanction would enable such offence to be enquired into or tried in India. When part of offence was committed on the soil of this Country Section 188 of Cr.P.C., cannot be relied upon by the accused. 1 2024 SCC OnLine Ker2903 2 2022 Live Law SC 321 //11// CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025

#16. In the matter of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others Vs. State of Telangana and another3, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at para 27 as follows ; indicating

#27. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalized and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them. appellant No.1

#17. In the matter of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that the simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases bed ridden grandfathers and grandmothers of husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested