AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI
GIST
Criminal proceedings under Section 85 BNS (498-A IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were quashed where the entirety of allegations arose outside India, and no part of the cause of action occurred within Indian territory. In the absence of previous sanction of the Central Government under Section 208 BNSS (Section 188 CrPC), investigation, cognizance, and trial in India were held to be without jurisdiction. The Court further held that omnibus and vague allegations against extended relatives residing abroad, without specific role attribution, amount to abuse of process. Filing of a charge-sheet in violation of subsisting stay orders and prior quashing orders vitiated the investigation. FIR and charge-sheet were quashed by invoking Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers).
HEAD NOTES
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Section 208
Offence committed outside India — Previous sanction of Central Government — Mandatory.
Where the entire offence is alleged to have been committed outside India, no inquiry or trial can be undertaken in India without prior sanction of the Central Government. In the absence of such sanction, investigation and cognizance are without jurisdiction.
(Paras 13–15, 19–21)
Penal Law — Section 85 BNS (498-A IPC) & Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act
Territorial jurisdiction — Cause of action wholly outside India.
When all allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment occurred abroad and no part of the cause of action arose in India, prosecution in India is barred under Section 208 BNSS.
(Paras 19–21)
Criminal Procedure — Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet
Inherent powers — Charge-sheet filed — Cognizance taken — Still quashable.
High Court retains power to quash FIR and charge-sheet even after filing of charge-sheet and taking of cognizance, where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.
(Paras 18–21)
Matrimonial Offences — Implication of relatives
Omnibus and vague allegations — Relatives living abroad.
General and sweeping allegations without specific acts or role attribution against relatives, particularly those residing abroad, cannot sustain criminal prosecution.
(Paras 16–17, 20)
Police Investigation — Disobedience of High Court orders
Charge-sheet filed despite stay and prior quashing — Investigation vitiated.
Filing of a charge-sheet in defiance of subsisting stay orders and prior quashing of proceedings constitutes willful disregard of judicial orders, rendering the investigation unsustainable.
(Paras 2, 7, 10, 20)
Matrimonial Disputes — Mandatory counselling
Counselling rendered illusory — Safeguard defeated.
Mechanical endorsement of counselling, without real possibility of participation by parties residing abroad, renders the statutory requirement an empty formality.
(Paras 9, 20)
RATIO DECIDENDI
When all allegations constituting offences under Section 85 BNS (498-A IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are alleged to have occurred outside India, no investigation, inquiry, or trial can be conducted in India without prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 208 BNSS. In the absence of such sanction, continuation of criminal proceedings is without jurisdiction and an abuse of process, warranting quashing of FIR and charge-sheet under Section 528 BNSS, even after cognizance. Further, omnibus allegations against extended relatives residing abroad, without specific role attribution, cannot sustain prosecution.
ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW
I. Factual Matrix
(Paras 1–5, 12–13, 19)
-
FIR No.194 of 2024 was registered for offences under Section 85 BNS and Sections 3 & 4 of DP Act.
-
Marriage occurred in India; spouses left for USA on 31.12.2022.
-
All alleged acts of cruelty, harassment, intimidation, and economic abuse occurred in USA.
-
No allegation of cruelty or dowry demand was made with respect to the period of stay in India.
-
Complaint was lodged in India after marital discord culminated in issuance of divorce notice from USA.
II. Procedural Irregularities in Investigation
(Paras 2, 7, 9–10, 20)
-
Proceedings against Accused Nos.3 and 4 had already been quashed by the High Court.
-
Despite subsisting stay orders, police filed a charge-sheet and Magistrate took cognizance.
-
Mandatory family counselling was shown as completed in a mechanical manner, despite accused residing abroad.
-
State conceded that filing of charge-sheet during subsistence of stay was a mistake.
III. Application of Section 208 BNSS (Section 188 CrPC)
(Paras 13–15, 19)
-
Section 208 BNSS creates a jurisdictional bar where offences are committed outside India.
-
The Court found that entire cause of action arose in USA, and no part occurred in India.
-
Following Sartaj Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, sanction of the Central Government was mandatory.
-
In absence of sanction, investigation and trial in India were held to be impermissible.
IV. Omnibus Allegations Against Relatives
(Paras 16–17, 20)
-
Allegations against relatives were collective, vague, and without specific role attribution.
-
Relatives were residing in different countries and did not reside in the matrimonial home.
-
Applying Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana and Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, the Court held such prosecution to be abuse of process.
V. Power to Quash After Charge-sheet
(Paras 18–21)
-
Relying on Shaileshbhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that inherent powers to quash survive even after filing of charge-sheet and cognizance.
VI. Conclusion
-
Entire allegations occurred outside India.
-
Mandatory sanction under Section 208 BNSS was absent.
-
Investigation suffered from illegality and defiance of court orders.
Accordingly, FIR and charge-sheet were quashed.
