Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kasu Seshi Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 July, 2025
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
//2//
CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
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
//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 from 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 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 arisen in USA and not in India.
6. Considering the submission 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 the
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
counselling was conducted for both families and that the
//6//
CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
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 in
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 that the
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.
12. In order to verify the applicability of Section 208 of BNSS, it
would be pertinent to consider the contents of the complaint and
//7//
CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
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
complained against the attitude of the complainant. They in
turn used to call up the complainant over phone and harass
her.
//8//
CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
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.
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
//9//CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
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:
Provided that notwithstanding anything in
any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no
such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India
//10//CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
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 ;
27. A mere reference to the names of family members
in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute,
without specific allegations indicating 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 the 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 house of appellant No.1 and
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.
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 the
husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested
and also held that the complainants do not visualize the
3 (2025) 3 SCC 735
4 (2022) 6 SCC 599
//12//
CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
implications and consequences of filing a complaint and the
tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate
relations has become a common trend. The Courts ought to be
extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints
and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing
with matrimonial cases. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also
referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
K.Subbarao Vs. State of Telangana5, and observed that the
relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of
omnibus allegations, unless specific instances of their involving
in the crime are made out. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further
held that in absence of specific role attributed to the accused it
would be unjust if the accused are forced to go through the
tribulations of a trial i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot
manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s
husband are forced to undergo trial. It was also held that in
varied instances criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal
also inflicts severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise
must be discouraged.
5 2018 (14) SCC 452
//13//
CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shaileshbhai
Ranchhodbhai Patel and another Vs. State of Gujarat6, held
that para 7 and 8 read as follows ;
7. The question of law involved in these two appeals as to
whether quashing of the FIR should have been refused for no
other reason than that the investigating officer has filed the
charge-sheet is no longer res integra. Decisions of this Court to
such effect are legion. We may profitably refer to the decisions of
this Court in Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, Anand Kumar
Mohatta vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Home Department4 and
Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
8. On the authority of the aforesaid decisions, law seems to be
well-settled that the High Court under Section 482, Cr. PC.
retains the power to quash an FIR, even after charge-sheet
under Section 173(2) thereof is filed, provided a satisfaction is
reached, inter alia, that either the FIR and the charge-sheet read
together, even accepted as true and correct without rebuttal,
does not disclose commission of any offence or that continuation
of proceedings arising out of such an FIR would in fact be an
abuse of the process of law as well as of the Court given the
peculiar circumstances of each particular case.
19. On the facts of this case, life after marriage of the complainant
and accused No.1 on 08.12.2022 till 31.12.2022 was uneventful
during their brief stay in India. The complainant and accused
No.1 stayed together in India for about 23 days before leaving for
USA on 31.12.2022. There is no allegation of harassment,
cruelty, demand for dowry etc., from anyone and from corner
during the stay of accused No.1 and complainant in India. The
entirety of allegations occurred in USA. No part of cause of
action arose within the soil of the Nation for filing the complaint
under Section 85 BNS (498-A of IPC) and Section 3 and 4 of DP
6 2024 Live Law SC 635
//14//
CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
Act. In such circumstances, following the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sartaj Khan Vs. State of Uttarkhand
(supra5), no such offence shall be inquired into or tried in India
except with the previous sanction of the Central Government and
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
matter of Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and another Vs.
State of Gujarat (supra6). The FIR and the charge sheet are
deserve to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this
Court under Section 528 of BNSS.
20. On the facts of this case, the entirety of allegations occurred in
USA and no allegation against any of the accused is made within
the country. The charge sheet filed is a continuation of the
complaint without there being any new event or evidence for
filing charge sheet against all the accused. The manner in which
the investigating officer has conducted investigation and
rendered the mandatory family counselling before investigation
as an empty formality deserves severe reprimanding. The
investigating officer has also willfully ignored the final order
passed in CRLP.No.861 of 2025 and flouted the orders of this
Court passed in CRLP.No.1932 of 2025 and other criminal
petitions and filed the charge sheet. The investigation conducted
by the investigating officer has to be labeled as table
//15//
CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
investigation. The conduct of the investigating officer would
amount to willful disobedience of the orders of this Court which
would render the investigating officer answerable for contempt of
the orders of this Court.
21. This Court is of the considered view in CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963,
3532 and 3656 of 2025 are allowed FIR No.194 of 2024
registered with Disha UPS, Visakhaptnam under Section 85 of
BNS and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act against the petitioners and
charge sheet filed on 01.04.2025 on the file of I Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam which is taken on file as
CC.No.1873 of 2025 are hereby quashed.
22. Accordingly, the criminal petitions are allowed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Date 10.07.2025
KGM/NKA
//16//
CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
Date: 10.07.2025
KGM/NKA