KASU JAGATHI Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(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 Sec. 85 BNS and Ss. 3 and 4 of DP Act. This Court granted stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.194 of 2024, vide orders dtd. 24/3/2025. 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 dtd. 30/1/2025.

(2.) However, the investigating officer has filed the charge sheet before the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhpatnam on 1/4/2025 and the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence against all the accused on 21/5/2025. This Court had granted stay of all further proceedings on 2/4/2025 in CRLP.No.3532 of 2025, this Court had granted stay of all further proceedings on 4/4/2025 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 Sec. 498-A IPC(85 of BNS) or Sec. 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 Sec. 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.