Registration of an FIR is not a prerequisite for grant of pre-arrest bail. Where a written complaint alleging cognizable and non-bailable offences is admittedly received by the police, and the factual matrix establishes a real possibility of arrest, the High Court is empowered under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 to grant pre-arrest bail, subject to appropriate conditions, particularly when past conduct indicates potential misuse of criminal process. (Paras 8, 10–12)

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI 

GIST

Pre-arrest bail – Unregistered crime – Complaint disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offence – Apprehension of arrest – Maintainability – Scope of Section 482 BNSS, 2023 – Prior history of complaints closed – Reasonable apprehension established – Conditions imposed.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh granted pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, even though no FIR had been registered, holding that where there exists a real and reasonable apprehension of arrest, the remedy is maintainable. The Court relied upon the principles laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Sushila Aggarwal, reiterating that registration of FIR is not a sine qua non for seeking anticipatory/pre-arrest bail.

---

HEAD NOTES

Criminal Law – Pre-arrest bail – Unregistered offence

BNSS, 2023 – Section 482
Grant of pre-arrest bail is maintainable even prior to registration of crime, provided the apprehension of arrest is founded on concrete facts and a specific complaint – FIR not mandatory.
(Paras 8, 12)

---

Criminal Procedure – Apprehension of arrest

Where allegations in the complaint disclose cognizable and non-bailable offences and the police do not deny receipt of the complaint, reasonable apprehension of arrest stands established.
(Paras 11(i), 11(ii), 12)

---

Criminal Law – Anticipatory bail – Factors

Nature and gravity of allegations, past conduct of the informant, history of earlier complaints and their closure, and possibility of misuse of criminal process are relevant considerations.
(Paras 10, 11(iii), 12)

---

Police Powers – Section 41-A CrPC / Section 35 BNSS

Mere submission that police will follow notice procedure does not by itself negate apprehension of arrest where alleged offences may attract punishment exceeding seven years.
(Para 11(ii))

---

Bail – Conditions

Grant of pre-arrest bail does not curtail investigation; cooperation with investigating agency and non-interference with witnesses can be ensured through conditions.
(Paras 12, 13)

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS

1. The petitioner is a government employee nearing retirement, facing a complaint dated 12.05.2025 alleging, inter alia, attempt to murder on 08.05.2025. (Para 1, 5)

2. No FIR was registered till date; however, police repeatedly summoned the petitioner, creating fear of arrest. (Paras 1, 7)

3. The informant had earlier lodged complaints against the petitioner:

   • Crime No.149 of 2017, Pattabhipuram PS – closed as “action dropped”.

   • Crime No.90 of 2021, Pulivendula PS – closed based on informant’s statement that death was due to epilepsy.
     (Para 10)

4. Allegations in the present complaint arise from a longstanding personal relationship, and include threats, assault, and attempt to kill. (Paras 5(i)–(iii))

5. The prosecution did not deny receipt of the complaint but contended that since no crime was registered, bail relief was premature. (Paras 7, 11(i))

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW

1. The Court traced the law from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia through Sushila Aggarwal, emphasizing that:

   • Anticipatory/pre-arrest bail can be sought even before FIR, provided apprehension is reasonable and fact-based. (Para 8)

2. The Court reproduced and relied upon the authoritative conclusions in para 85 of Sushila Aggarwal, particularly:

   • Apprehension must relate to a specific offence.

   • FIR registration is not mandatory.

   • Courts must assess gravity, role of accused, and possibility of misuse. (Paras 8–9)

3. The Court further relied upon Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani, reaffirming the same principles. (Para 9)

4. Applying these principles, the Court held that:

   • Allegations disclose serious offences.

   • Prior history shows repeated complaints ending in closure.

   • Police acknowledgment of complaint coupled with seriousness of allegations makes arrest plausible.
     (Paras 10–12)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Registration of an FIR is not a prerequisite for grant of pre-arrest bail. Where a written complaint alleging cognizable and non-bailable offences is admittedly received by the police, and the factual matrix establishes a real possibility of arrest, the High Court is empowered under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 to grant pre-arrest bail, subject to appropriate conditions, particularly when past conduct indicates potential misuse of criminal process.

(Paras 8, 10–12)

Transfer of Prison Warders/Constables challenged as punitive. Held that transfer is an incident of service and judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited. Mere temporal proximity between an alleged incident of misconduct and the order of transfer, or subsequent issuance of charge memos, does not by itself render a transfer punitive, particularly where transfers are effected on administrative grounds affecting a large number of employees. In the absence of pleaded malafides, violation of statutory transfer rules, or proof that transfer was in lieu of punishment, interference is unwarranted. Writ Petition dismissed.

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI 

GIST

Transfer of Prison Warders/Constables challenged as punitive. Held that transfer is an incident of service and judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited. Mere temporal proximity between an alleged incident of misconduct and the order of transfer, or subsequent issuance of charge memos, does not by itself render a transfer punitive, particularly where transfers are effected on administrative grounds affecting a large number of employees. In the absence of pleaded malafides, violation of statutory transfer rules, or proof that transfer was in lieu of punishment, interference is unwarranted. Writ Petition dismissed.

---

HEAD NOTES 

Service Law — Transfer — Scope of judicial review

Transfer of a Government servant holding a transferable post is an incident of service. Courts do not sit in appeal over administrative transfers and will not interfere unless the transfer is vitiated by malafides, violation of statutory rules, or is demonstrably punitive.
(Paras 9–11, 13–14)

---

Transfer — Administrative grounds

Where transfers are effected on stated administrative grounds and form part of a general transfer order affecting several employees, the same cannot ordinarily be characterised as punitive or targeted.
(Paras 14–16)

---

Transfer alleged to be punitive

Mere proximity in time between an alleged incident of misconduct and an order of transfer does not establish that the transfer is punitive, especially when disciplinary proceedings are independently initiated under the applicable service rules.
(Paras 15–16)

---

Punitive transfer — Test

A transfer becomes punitive only when it is passed in lieu of punishment or founded on allegations of misconduct without following disciplinary procedure. Where regular disciplinary proceedings are initiated separately, transfer cannot be termed punitive.
(Paras 12, 15–16)

---

Malafides — Pleading and parties

In the absence of specific pleadings of malafides and non-joinder of the officers against whom such allegations are made, a challenge to transfer on the ground of mala fides cannot be sustained.
(Para 17)

---

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Judicial review in transfer matters is narrowly confined. Unless the petitioner satisfies the recognised exceptions, interference under Article 226 is impermissible.
(Paras 9, 13, 17)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

An order of transfer, even if issued shortly after an incident involving the employee, does not become punitive merely on that account. Where the transfer is stated to be on administrative grounds, applies to multiple employees, and disciplinary proceedings are separately initiated in accordance with service rules, the transfer cannot be treated as one in lieu of punishment. In the absence of pleaded and proved malafides or violation of statutory provisions, courts will not interfere with such transfers under Article 226.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Background Facts

(Paras 1–4)

• Petitioners, Prison Warders/Constables, were transferred from Central Prison, Visakhapatnam by memorandum dated 29.12.2024.

• Transfers were stated to be on administrative grounds and formed part of a larger order affecting 66 employees.

• Petitioners alleged that the transfers were triggered by incidents on 27–28.12.2024 and were therefore punitive.

---

II. Stand of the Respondents

(Para 3)

• Respondents asserted that transfers were purely administrative.

• Search operations were conducted based on security inputs.

• Any protest by staff posed security concerns.

• Disciplinary proceedings were independently initiated later.

---

III. Legal Principles on Transfer

(Paras 9–12)

• Transfer is a normal incident of service.

• Courts lack expertise in personnel management.

• Judicial review is confined to malafides, statutory violations, or punitive colour.

---

IV. Punitive Transfer — Examination

(Paras 12–16)

• The Court examined the plea that transfer was punitive relying on Somesh Tiwari.

• Held that although the incident and transfer were close in time, subsequent issuance of charge memos showed that disciplinary jurisdiction was separately exercised.

• If authorities had stopped with transfer alone, the contention might have carried weight; however, that was not the case.

---

V. Absence of Malafides

(Para 17)

• No specific allegations of malafides.

• No impleadment of officers against whom mala fide intent was alleged.

• Hence, the challenge failed on this count.

---

VI. Conclusion

(Paras 17–18)

• Petitioners failed to satisfy the recognised exceptions warranting interference.

• Transfer orders upheld.

• Writ Petition dismissed; interlocutory applications closed.

In an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC against an order making attachment before judgment absolute under Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 CPC, the High Court held that where the Trial Court has recorded a prima facie case, considered documentary material placed on record, and found a real threat of alienation of property with intent to defeat execution of a possible decree, the appellate court will not interfere merely because disputed questions of accounts and calculations arise. Objections to calculations and rival versions of accounts are matters for trial or for modification application before the Trial Court and cannot, by themselves, vitiate an order of attachment passed in compliance with statutory requirements. The appellate court will not substitute its discretion unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to settled principles governing Order XXXVIII CPC.

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI 

GIST

In an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC against an order making attachment before judgment absolute under Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 CPC, the High Court held that where the Trial Court has recorded a prima facie case, considered documentary material placed on record, and found a real threat of alienation of property with intent to defeat execution of a possible decree, the appellate court will not interfere merely because disputed questions of accounts and calculations arise. Objections to calculations and rival versions of accounts are matters for trial or for modification application before the Trial Court and cannot, by themselves, vitiate an order of attachment passed in compliance with statutory requirements. The appellate court will not substitute its discretion unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to settled principles governing Order XXXVIII CPC.

---

HEAD NOTES 

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order XXXVIII Rules 5 & 6

Attachment before judgment — Conditions — Prima facie case and intent to defeat decree.
Attachment before judgment can be ordered where the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff has a prima facie claim and that the defendant is attempting to alienate or dispose of property with intent to obstruct or delay execution of a decree that may be passed.
(Paras 32–35, 39)

---

Attachment before judgment — Nature of power

Extraordinary and drastic power — To be exercised sparingly.
The power under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC is not intended to convert an unsecured debt into a secured one and must be exercised strictly in accordance with statutory requirements and settled principles.
(Paras 34–35)

---

Attachment before judgment — Threat of alienation

Brochure and third-party affidavit — Sufficient prima facie material.
Material indicating that the defendant printed brochures in his own name and attempted to alienate property was sufficient for the Trial Court to infer a real threat of alienation capable of rendering a future decree inexecutable.
(Paras 13, 17, 39)

---

Prima facie case — Meaning

Not proof of title or final entitlement.
Prima facie case signifies a substantial and bona fide dispute requiring trial and not proof of the claim on merits.
(Paras 40–41)

---

Accounts and calculations — Dispute

Disputed calculations not ground to set aside attachment.
Where the Trial Court called for correlation statements and relied upon calculation tables filed by the plaintiff, in the absence of objections or counter-tables by the defendant at that stage, disputes regarding correctness of calculations cannot invalidate an attachment order and must be adjudicated at trial or in modification proceedings.
(Paras 42–48, 58)

---

Order XXXVIII Rule 6 CPC

Failure to furnish security — Attachment justified.
Where the defendant fails to furnish security as directed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, the Court is empowered under Rule 6 to order attachment of property sufficient to satisfy the decree that may be passed.
(Paras 16, 33)

---

Appellate jurisdiction — Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC

Limited scope of interference — Discretionary orders.
In an appeal against an interlocutory order, the appellate court will not interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court unless the order is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or in violation of settled principles of law.
(Paras 53–56)

---

Reasoned order

Attachment order must disclose reasons.
An order of attachment before judgment must disclose reasons demonstrating satisfaction of statutory conditions; where such reasons are recorded, the order cannot be termed non-speaking.
(Paras 49–52)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Where the Trial Court, after affording opportunity, records satisfaction that (i) the plaintiff has a prima facie claim, (ii) the defendant has failed to furnish security, and (iii) there exists a real likelihood of alienation of property intended to defeat execution of a possible decree, an order making attachment before judgment absolute under Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 CPC is a valid exercise of discretion. In appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, the High Court will not re-appreciate disputed accounts or substitute its discretion unless the order is shown to be perverse, arbitrary, or contrary to settled law.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Nature of the Suit and Interim Proceedings

(Paras 2–10)

• The suit was a commercial original suit for recovery of ₹3,19,75,543/- based on an MOU dated 05.11.2020.

• Plaintiff alleged refundable advance, periodical advances, marketing expenses, and loss caused by unilateral conduct of the defendant.

• Defendant denied liability, asserted dissolution of MOU, refund by adjustment, and disputed calculations.

---

II. Application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC

(Paras 8–14)

• Plaintiff sought attachment before judgment alleging imminent alienation of property.

• Defendant opposed the application reiterating defences in the written statement.

• The Special Court directed furnishing of security; on failure, attachment was effected and later made absolute.

---

III. Findings of the Trial Court

(Paras 11–14, 39)

• Prima facie case established based on documents and correlation tables.

• Threat of alienation inferred from brochures and third-party affidavit.

• Observed that issues regarding interest, cancellation of MOU, and exact liability were matters for trial.

---

IV. Appellate Contentions

(Paras 22–29)

• Appellant contended absence of prima facie case, erroneous calculations, and non-speaking order.

• Respondent supported the order relying on material indicating alienation and failure to furnish security.

---

V. Legal Principles Applied

(Paras 32–38)

• Order XXXVIII Rules 5 & 6 CPC require satisfaction of intent to defeat decree.

• Attachment before judgment is extraordinary and must not be granted mechanically.

• Prima facie case does not mean final adjudication.

---

VI. Appellate Court’s Reasoning

(Paras 39–56)

• Trial Court recorded cogent reasons and complied with statutory requirements.

• Defendant failed to object to correlation tables at the appropriate stage.

• Disputed calculations are matters for trial or modification application.

• No perversity or illegality found warranting interference.

---

VII. Conclusion

(Paras 57–60)

• Appeal dismissed.

• Liberty preserved to seek modification before Trial Court.

• No costs.

Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to ensure public confidence and assuage religious sentiments, constituted an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) with specifically nominated members and placed it under the supervision of the Director, CBI, any investigation conducted by an officer not named as a member of the reconstituted SIT was held to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions. The Director, CBI cannot expand or alter the composition of the SIT by permitting an outsider officer to function as Investigating Officer. Such action amounts to overreaching the orders of the Supreme Court. Writ of mandamus issued directing free and fair investigation strictly by the reconstituted SIT.

AP HIGH COURT AMARAVATHI

GIST

Where the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to ensure public confidence and assuage religious sentiments, constituted an independent Special Investigation Team (SIT) with specifically nominated members and placed it under the supervision of the Director, CBI, any investigation conducted by an officer not named as a member of the reconstituted SIT was held to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the Supreme Court’s directions. The Director, CBI cannot expand or alter the composition of the SIT by permitting an outsider officer to function as Investigating Officer. Such action amounts to overreaching the orders of the Supreme Court. Writ of mandamus issued directing free and fair investigation strictly by the reconstituted SIT.

---

HEAD NOTES 

Constitution of India — Article 226

Writ of mandamus — Free and fair investigation — Enforcement of Supreme Court directions.
High Court can issue a writ directing compliance with and faithful implementation of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court relating to constitution and functioning of a Special Investigation Team.
(Paras 1, 28)

---

Criminal Investigation — Special Investigation Team (SIT)

SIT constituted by Supreme Court — Composition final and binding.
When the Supreme Court substitutes a State-constituted SIT with an independent SIT consisting of specifically nominated members, the investigation must be conducted only by such members and under the supervision stipulated by the Supreme Court.
(Paras 5–7, 19–24)

---

Criminal Investigation — Jurisdiction of Investigating Officer

Officer not named as SIT member — No authority to investigate.
An officer who is not a member of the SIT constituted pursuant to Supreme Court directions cannot assume the role of Investigating Officer or issue notices under the BNSS. Any such assumption of authority is without jurisdiction.
(Paras 12–14, 24–27)

---

Supreme Court Directions — Binding nature

Director, CBI — No power to alter or enlarge SIT composition.
The Director, CBI is bound by the directions of the Supreme Court and cannot, by administrative orders, permit an officer outside the reconstituted SIT to conduct investigation, as it would amount to overreaching the Supreme Court’s order.
(Paras 19–22, 25–27)

---

Investigation touching religious sentiments

Heightened standard of independence and neutrality.
Where investigation concerns matters affecting religious sentiments of crores of devotees, strict adherence to the structure and safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court is mandatory.
(Paras 21, 25)

---

Irregular investigation — Cure doctrine

Illegality curable — Not applicable where Supreme Court directions violated.
Principles permitting curing of defects in investigation do not apply where investigation itself is conducted in violation of explicit directions of the Supreme Court.
(Paras 25–27)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Once the Hon’ble Supreme Court substitutes a State-appointed SIT with an independent SIT of specifically identified members and mandates that investigation be carried out under a defined supervisory framework, no authority—including the Director, CBI—can enlarge, alter, or bypass that composition. Any investigation conducted by an officer not forming part of the reconstituted SIT is without jurisdiction, constitutes overreach of the Supreme Court’s order, and violates the requirement of a free and fair investigation, warranting issuance of a writ of mandamus.

---

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

I. Background and Genesis of the SIT

(Paras 3–7, 11)

• Crime No.470 of 2024 concerned allegations relating to use of adulterated ghee in preparation of Tirumala Laddu Prasadam.

• Statements by high constitutional functionaries and conflicting official versions led to public concern.

• The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in WP(C) No.622 of 2024, substituted the State-constituted SIT with an independent SIT, comprising:

  • Two officers nominated by the Director, CBI

  • Two officers nominated by the State of Andhra Pradesh

  • One senior officer of FSSAI

• Investigation was directed to be conducted under the supervision of the Director, CBI.

---

II. Grievance of the Petitioner

(Paras 2, 8–14)

• Petitioner alleged coercion, intimidation, repeated re-recording of statements, and deletion of earlier recordings.

• Notices were issued by the 10th respondent styling himself as “Investigating Officer” under Section 179 BNSS.

• The 10th respondent was not named as a member of the reconstituted SIT.

---

III. Defence of Respondents

(Paras 14–17)

• Respondents contended that the Director, CBI had acknowledged and permitted the 10th respondent to continue investigation.

• Reliance placed on precedents where defects in investigation were held curable.

---

IV. Core Legal Issue

(Paras 13, 19)

Whether an officer not named in the SIT constituted pursuant to Supreme Court directions can validly act as Investigating Officer based on administrative approval by the Director, CBI.

---

V. Findings of the Court

A. Binding Nature of Supreme Court Directions

(Paras 19–22)

• The Supreme Court consciously substituted the State SIT with an independent SIT to ensure credibility and public confidence.

• The purpose and structure of such substitution could not be diluted by administrative interpretation.

B. Lack of Jurisdiction of the 10th Respondent

(Paras 24–27)

• The 10th respondent was not included among the officers nominated to the reconstituted SIT.

• Permitting him to investigate amounted to expanding the SIT beyond what was authorized by the Supreme Court.

C. Limits of Director, CBI’s Authority

(Paras 25–27)

• Supervisory control does not include power to override or modify judicially fixed composition of the investigating body.

• Proceedings dated 28.10.2024 issued by the Director, CBI were held to overreach the Supreme Court’s order.

D. Inapplicability of “Curable Defect” Doctrine

(Paras 25–27)

• Cases relating to curable defects in investigation were distinguished.

• The present case involved jurisdictional illegality, not a mere procedural irregularity.

---

VI. Relief Granted

(Para 28)

• Writ petition allowed.

• Respondent No.2 directed to ensure free and fair investigation strictly by the reconstituted SIT, in accordance with Supreme Court directions.

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).

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.