Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Ms. Kasu Jagathi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 10 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY
-t3\
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE '*3 vffi 3D
PRESENT w ★
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS: 1932. 2963, 3532 AND 3656 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 1932 OF 2025
APHC010090402025
Between:
Ms. Kasu Jagathi, D/o. Sambi Reddy, Aged about 34 years.
Occupation: Housewife, R/o. 74-6/1-9A, VSR Road, Ayyappa Nagar,
Vijayawada (Urban), Krishnanagar, Krishna, Andhra Pradesh - 520007.
Currently residing at 108, Crossway Avenue, Tarneit, Meibourne,
Victoria - 3029 Australia.
...Petitioner/Accused No.2
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for
the State of Andhra Pradesh, Through SHO, Disha UPS,
Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
■■■
, R/0.
Seshi Reddy, Aged about 32 years
2. Ms Chelta
o
Jyothi, W/o. Ka
<ir>9/43 Tagarapuvalasa,
Bheemili, Adarsh Nagar,
Visakbapatnam
Commissionerate, Andhra Pradesh. Complainant
...RespondentsfOefacto
that in the circumstances
528 of BNSS praying
Petition under Section
of Grounds of Criminai Petition, the High Co
stated in the Memorandum S initiated against the
criminal proceeding
be pleased to quash the in fir No. 194 of 2024
. 2, namely, Ms . Kasu Jagathi, m
may
for the offences
Petitioner/Accused No ypS, Visakhapatnam
the file of Disha 3 of the Dowry
dated 08.07.2024 Oh 2023 and Section
under Section 85 of BNS
punishable
prohibition Act, 1961.
\L NO: 1
and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
482 of Cr.P.C
Petition under Section
stated in the Memorandum
, of Grounds Of criminal petitionee
circumstances «th the filing of the Originai/Certified
High Court may be pleased to dispense 2024 registered before
the Disha
2024 dated 08.07.
copy of FIR No. 194 of
UPS, Visakhapatnam.
|AN0L20F2g25
482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
Petition under Section of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum further proceedings
including
be pleased to grant stay of all in FIR No. 194 of
High Court may . Kasu Jagathi) m
/Accused No. 2 (i.e
the arrest of the Petitioner UPS, Visakhapatnam.
.•>;
2024 dated 08.07.2024 registered before the Disha
,A Mfy.3OF2025
482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in h
Petition under Section of Grounds of Criminal Petition, e
stated in the Memorandum
circumstances the typographical/clericai error
be pleased to rectify
High Court may
substituting the word "him" with "her" and "he" with "she" in the order dated
24.03.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court.
#
IA NO: 4 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to extend the Interim Order granted on 24.03.2025
in CRLP 1932 of 2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Aahana
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Shaik Ameena Rehmani
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 2963 OF 2025
APHC010137372025
Between:
Viguturi Mehar Jahnavi (A8), D/o Subba Reddy, Aged about 25 years.
Rep. through GPA Mr. Viguturi Subba Reddy R/o D.No.59-8-1/4, ASM
Towers, Gayatri Nagar, Vijayawada (Urban).
...Petitioner/Accused 8
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court
of A.P., Amaravati, Guntur District.
...Respondent
2. Smt Chetia Jyothi, W/o Kasu Seshi Reddy, Aged about 32 years, R/o
H.No.8-57-102/43, Adarsh Nagar, Tagarapuvalasa, Bheemili,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondent/De-facto Complainant
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in F.I.R No. 194/2024,
dt.08.07.2024 on the file of Disha UPS, Visakhapatnam PS against the
Petitioner/Accused No.8 alleged to have committed offenses punishable under
Sections 85 BNS equivalent to 498A I PC, 3 D.P Act.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to Dispense with a filling of the Certified Copy of F.I.R
No. 194/2024, dt.08.07.2024 on the file of Disha UPS, Visakhapatnam PS.
•M lA NO: 2 OF 2025
t
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to grant a stay of all further proceedings in F.I.R
No.194/2024, dt.08.07.2024 on the file of Disha UPS, Visakhapatnam PS,
against the Petitioner/Accused No.8 alleged to have committed offenses
punishable under Sections 85 BNS equivalent to 498A IPC, 3 D.P Act till the
disposal of the main case against the Petitioner/Accused No.8.
lA NO: 3 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to extend the Interim Order granted by this Hon'ble court
dated 20.03.2025, in CRLP No.2963 of 2025, pending disposal of the above
Criminal Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Venkat Chalasani
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Shaik Ameena Rehmani
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3532 OF 2025
APHC010149152025
Between:
1. Viguturi Subba Reddy, (A5) S/o Viguturi Anantha Reddy, Aged about 52
years, R/o D.No.59-8-1/4, ASM Towers, Gayatri Nagar, Vijayawada
(Urban).
2. Smt Viguturi Sree Latha, (A7) W/o Viguturi Subba Reddy, Aged about
45 years, R/o D.No.59-8-1/4, ASM Towers, Gayatri Nagar, Vijayawada
(Urban).
...Petitioners/Accused 5 & 7
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court
of A.P., Amaravati, Guntur District.
...Respondent
2. Smt Chetia Jyothi, W/o Kasu Seshi Reddy, Aged about 32 years, R/o
H.No.8-57-102/43, Adarsh Nagar, Tagarapuvalasa, Bheemili,
Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondent/De-facto Complainant
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in F.I.R No.194/2024,
dt. 08.07.2024 on the file of Disha UPS, Visakhapatnam PS, against the
Petitioners/Accused No.5 and 7 alleged to have committed offenses
punishable under Sections 85 BNS equivalent to 498A IPC, 3 D.P Act.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to Dispense with a filling of the Certified Copy of F.I.R
No. 194/2024, dt. 08.07.2024 on the file of Disha UPS, Visakhapatnam PS.
lA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to grant a stay of all further proceedings in F.I.R
No.194/2024, dt. 08.07.2024 on the file of Disha UPS, Visakhapatnam PS,
against the Petitioners/Accused No.5 and 7 alleged to have committed
X
offenses punishable under Sections 85 BNS equivalent to 498A IPC, 3 D. P
Act till the disposal of the main case against the Petitioners/Accused No.5 and
7.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Venkat Chalasani
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor
'S'-'
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Shaik Ameena Rehmani
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3656 OF 2025
APHC010160222025
Between:
Kasu Seshi Reddy, S/o Sambi Reddy, aged about 33 years, Occ
Software Engineer, currently residing at 4360, S Ozone, Mesa,
Arizona-85212.
Permanent Resident of 59-13-33, 0pp. Stella Maris College, Gayatri
Nagar, Vijayawada, NTR district, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor High Court
of A.P at Amaravati.
2. Chetia Jyothi, Kasu Seshi Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Software
Engineer, R/o H.No.8-57-102/43, Tagarapuvalasa, Adarsh Nagar,
Bheemili, Vishakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondent/De-facto Complainant
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to quash the proceedings in FIR. No. 194 of 2024 on the file
of Disha UPS, Visakhapatnam against the petitioner.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the
circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the
High Court may be pleased to dispense with in filing the certified copy of
FIR.No.194 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Disha UPS
Vishakhapatnam, Pending disposal for the Criminal Petition.
lA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court
may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in FIR. No. 194 of 2024, On
the file of Disha UPS, Visakhapatnam Including appearance of the petitioner
pending disposal of the Criminal Petition and including the arrest of the
petitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rayala Bhagya Raja
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Shaik Ameena Rehmani
The Court made the following order:
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 2″^^ 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.
HAH
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
/•p.
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 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 the
4 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 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
2^^ respondent. Perused the material on record.
mu
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 2′”‘^ 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.
1^* 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.
2″^ 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.
3*^^* 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.
4*^ 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.
5**^ 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.
6**^ 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.
y^^aHeqation 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.
8**^ allegation in the complaint :
I. 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
9″‘ 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.
10*^ 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 another\ the High Court of Kerala was
considering the quashment of a calendar case for alleged
offence under Section 498-A I PC and quashed the case as theentire 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 Uttarkhand^ held thatSection 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
-i
in India. When part of offence was committed on the soil of thisCountry Section 188 of Cr.P.C., cannot be relied upon by the
accused.
2024 see OnLine Ker2903
^2022 Live Law Se 321
//II//
CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
16. In the matter of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others Vs. State
of Telangana and another^ 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 others^ 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
^ (2025) 3 see 735
^(2022). 6 see 599
//12//
CRLP.Nos.1932, 2963, 3532 and 3656 of 2025
and also held that the complainants do not visualize the
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 Telangana®, 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.
® 2018 (14) see 452
t*
//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 Gujarat®, 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
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
(supra^), 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 (supra®). The FIR and the charge sheet
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
.1,
g:
//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 whichwould render the investigating officer answerable for contempt of
the orders of this Court.
21. This Court is of the considered view that CRLP.Nos. 1932, 2963,
3532 and 3656 of 2025 deserve to be 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, these criminal petitions are allowed.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/- M SRINIVAS
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
(For His Lordship’s Kind Perusal)
To,
1. The I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of First Class:
Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
2. The Station House Officer, Visakhapatnam Disha UPS Police Station,
Visakhapatnam District.
3. One CC to Sri Aahana Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Sri Shaik Ameena Rehmani Advocate [OPUC]
5. One CC to Sri Rayala Bhagya Raja Advocate [OPUC]
6. One CC to Sri Venkat Chalasani Advocate [OPUC]
7. Two CC’s to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravati [OUT]
8. Nine (09) L.R. Copies.
9. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and
4. Company Affairs, New Delhi.
lO.The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association
%
9
4 .
i Library,
High Court Buildings, Amaravathi.
11 .Two CD Copies
SAM
*•
vna
K-
t
»•-
ft
\
HIGH COURT
DATED: 10/07/2025
COMMON ORDER
I
h
CRLP Nos. 1932, 2963, 3532 & 3656 of 2025
ALLOWING THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS