1. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short, ‘the BNSS’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.269 of 2026 of Miyapur Police Station, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’).

2. Brief facts of the case:

               2.1. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 17.02.2026 before the Inspector of Police, Miyapur Police Station, stating that she married Pruthvi Paul Reddy Mettu in the year 2015, and they have an eight year old son. Later, they separated in the year 2020, while residing in Australia. In the year 2021, during her employment in Australia, she became acquainted with petitioner No.1 and developed a close relationship with him and lived with him for about three months in Australia. Later, in the year 2022, again she started living separately near petitioner No.1’s workplace for about two years. During this period, petitioner No.1 had physical relation with her on the false promise that he would marry her and also recorded private videos without her consent. It is further stated that petitioner No.1 obtained several lakhs of rupees from her on the pretext that the money was required for his visa and personal expenses. When she became pregnant twice, petitioner No.1 forcibly compelled her to undergo abortions against her will. Petitioner No.1 subjected her to mental, physical and emotional harassment during the years 2022 and 2023. In December 2025, petitioner No.1 compelled her to purchase an iPhone 17 Pro Max for him and thereafter took it from her. Whenever she questioned him about marriage, he gave false assurances and later avoided her. Subsequently, she came to know that petitioner No.1 was talking and pursuing with another girl. In December 2025, when she confronted him, he clearly stated that he would not marry her. After returning to India, she came to know that petitioner No.1 had been spreading false rumors about her and defaming her character. Further, petitioner No.1 was blackmailing her by threatening to circulate the private videos among her relatives. It is further stated that petitioner No.2, who is the mother of petitioner No.1, threatened her that she would come to her house and create a nuisance and make false allegations that she was harassing her son.

               2.2. It is stated that she is having supporting evidence, including chats, call records, and other relevant material. She also stated that she subsequently came to know that petitioner No.1 had cheated other women in a similar manner. Due to his acts, she suffered severe mental, emotional, and financial loss. Basing on the aforesaid complaint, Crime No.269 of 2026 was registered against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.

3. Heard Mr. P. Sriharinath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Keerthana, learned counsel representing Mr. P. Sreenivasulu, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 State.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:

               4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and have been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations levelled in the compliant, the said allegations took place when respondent No.2 was residing in Australia. However, she lodged the complaint before the Miryapur Police Station only with an intention to harass the petitioners, though no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Miyapur Police Station. Therefore, the registration of the crime at Miyapur Police Station was without jurisdiction. The Investigating Officer, without obtaining the prior permission or sanction of the Central Government as contemplated under Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 208 of the BNSS, registered the crime and proceeding with the investigation and the same is clear abuse of the process of law.

               4.2. He further submitted that petitioner No.1 had neither made any false promise to marry respondent No.2 and developed a physical relationship with her as alleged in the complaint. The relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was consensual, and therefore, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 69 of the BNS are not attracted. Respondent No.2 has been implicated petitioner No.2 also by making omnibus allegations on the ground that she is the mother of petitioner No.1, though petitioner No.2 had never threatened respondent No.2 at any point of time as alleged in the complaint. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law and the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed.

               4.3. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following:

               1. Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr (Criminal Appeal No.2061 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2260 of 2026 dated 20.04.2026);

               2. Judgment of this Court in Vepachettu Anil v. The State of Telangana (Criminal Appeal No.682 of 2019 dated 18.12.2024);

               3. Order of the Madras High Court in Mumtaz Basha and others v. Dr. Farhana Sulthana (Crl.O.P. (MD) Nos. 13767, 19756 of 2013 and M.P. (MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2014, 1 and 2 of 2013 dated 12.06.2018)

               4. Order of this Court in Pachange Ganesh v. State of Telangana (Criminal Petition No.7200 of 2025, dated 19.01.2026); and

               5. Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryaya at Chandigarh in Krishan Chand Samdyan and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (CRR Nos. 2729 and 3940 of 2015 dated 14.02.2017).

5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:

               5.1. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there are specific allegations levelled in the complaint that petitioner No.1 developed a physical relationship with respondent No.2 by giving her a false promise that he would marry her and recorded private videos without her consent. When respondent No.2 became pregnant on two occasions, petitioner No.1 compelled her to undergo abortions against her will and when respondent No.2 insisted upon marriage, petitioner No.1 threatened her and subsequently stated that he would not marry her. Further, petitioner No.1 obtained a substantial amount from respondent No.2 on the pretext that same was required for his visa and personal expenses.

               5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that, after respondent No.2 returned to India, she came to know that petitioner No.1 started spreading false rumors about her character and defaming her. He also blackmailed respondent No.2 by threatening to circulate private videos among her relatives. The above said allegations arose after respondent No.2 returned to India and are not confined to the period during which she was residing in Australia. Hence, obtaining prior sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. does not arise. Hence, the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 is very much maintainable under law.

               5.3. Learned counsel also submitted that there are specific allegations against petitioner No.2 that she threatened respondent No.2 by stating that she would come to her residence and create a nuisance on the ground that respondent No.2 was troubling her son/petitioner No.1. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings, especially the investigation is under progress.

               5.4. In support her contention, she relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Accamma Sam Jacob v. The State of Karnataka & Anr. Etc. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 585), wherein it was held that the power of High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of the BNSS or Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interdict investigation is to be exercised with great circumspection, bearing in mind the statutory duty of the investigating agency to inquire into cognizable offences. It was further held that the criminal investigation ought not to be scuttled at the threshold except in cases where the complaint ex facie does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. In Thota Venkateswarlu v. State of A.P. TR. PINCL. SEC. & ANR (SLP (Crl.) No.7640 of 2008) ((2011) 9 SCC 527), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that under Section 188 Cr.P.C., no previous sanction of the Central Government is required for taking cognizance of an offence committed outside India; however, such sanction is mandatory before proceeding with the trial beyond the stage of cognizance. Hence, up to the stage of taking cognizance, no previous sanction of the Central Government is necessary.

6. Submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1:

               6.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and contended that the complaint contains specific allegations against the petitioners and the said allegations would attract the ingredients of the offences levelled against them.

               6.2. He further submitted that respondent No.2, in the complaint as well as in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C./180 of the BNSS, specifically stated that after returning to India, she came to know that petitioner No.1 had been spreading false rumors about her and defaming her character. She also stated that petitioner No.1 was blackmailing her by threatening to circulate the private videos among her relatives and also stated that petitioner No.1 had cheated her and by giving a false promise of marriage, developed a physical relation with her. She also stated that petitioner No.2 had threatened respondent No.2 that she would come to her residence and create a nuisance stating that respondent No.2 was troubling her son. The said allegations levelled in the complaint prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 69 and 351(2) of the BNS. The investigation is under progress. At this stage, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings.

Analysis :

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 17.02.2026, wherein she specifically stated that she married Pruthvi Paul Reddy in the year 2015 and they have an eight year old son. Subsequently, they separated in the year 2020, while residing in Australia. In the year 2021, during her employment in Australia, petitioner No.1 became acquainted with her and developed a close relationship with her and lived with him for about three months. Later, in the year 2022, again she started living separately near petitioner No.1’s workplace for about two years. During this period, petitioner No.1 had physical relationship with her on the false promise that he would marry her and also recorded private videos without her consent. Further, petitioner No.1 took a substantial amount of money from her stating that the same was required for his visa and personal expenses. She further stated that she became pregnant twice and that petitioner No.1 forced her to undergo abortions against her will and whenever respondent No.2 questioned petitioner No.1 about marriage, he gave false assurances and later avoided her. In December, 2025, when she again demanded about marriage, he stated that he would not marry her. After returning to India, respondent No.2 came to know that petitioner No.1 was spreading false rumors about her character and defaming her. She further stated that petitioner No.1 was blackmailing her by threatening to leak her private videos, which were recorded without her consent, among her relatives and that petitioner No.2, who is the mother of petitioner No.1, threatened respondent No.2 by stating that she would come to her residence and create a nuisance on the ground that respondent No.2 was troubling her son. Respondent No.2 had enclosed chats, call records and other supporting material, which are in her possession, with the complaint.

8. The record reveals that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of respondent No.2 as LW.1 as well as other witnesses and the investigation is under progress. Respondent No.2, in her statement, specifically mentioned the role of the petitioners. The allegations levelled in the complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences.

9. Insofar as the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that entire allegations levelled in the complaint pertain to the period when respondent No.2 was residing in Australia and that the Investigating Officer, without obtaining the necessary sanction from the Central Government as contemplated under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C, registered the crime and proceeding with the investigation, is not tenable under law, on the ground that there are specific allegations levelled in the compliant that petitioner No.1 has given a false promise that he would marry respondent No.2 and developed physical relationship when she was at Australia and when she return back to India, she came to know that petitioner No.1 has been spreading false rumors and defaming her character and also blackmailing her that he will leak the private videos of her to her relatives and there is an allegation that petitioner No.2 had also threatened that she would come to the house of respondent No.2 and create nuisance on the ground that respondent No.2 is troubling her son i.e., petitioner No.1. The complaint contains allegations relating to commission of offences by the petitioners, when respondent No.2 is residing in India. Whether the allegations levelled in the complaint are true or not, the same will be revealed during the course of investigation, especially the investigation is under progress.

10. It is relevant to mention that already stated supra that in Thota Venkateshwarlu (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that up to the stage of taking cognizance, previous sanction from the Central Government is not required, even if the allegations levelled against the accused relate to acts committed outside India.

11. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Shaileshbhai Govindbhai Makwana (supra) and Vepachettu Anil (supra) are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that wherein the party had approached the High Court of Bombay for seeking quashing of the final report/charge sheet for the offences under Sections 376 of the IPC and the allegations levelled in the said complaint that the appellant developed physical relation by making a false promise of marriage. In Vepachettu Anil (supra), the petitioner therein was convicted for the offences under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC and aggrieved by the sentence of imprisonment; the accused had approached this Court and filed the Criminal Appeal. Whereas, the case on hand is still at crime stage and the investigation is under progress.

12. In Pachange Ganesh (supra), this Court held that the contents of the complaint discloses that there was a consensual relationship between the de facto complainant and the petitioner therein. Whereas, in the case on hand, petitioner No.1 not only by giving false promise to marry respondent No.2, developed physical relationship and compelled her to undergo abortion two times against her will and there is an allegation that petitioner No.1 spreading false rumors about her character and defaming her and also blackmailing her that he will leak the private videos among her relatives, which were taken without her consent.

13. In Krishan Chand Samdyan (supra), the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh by referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thota Venkateshwarlu v. State of A.P. held that Section 188 of Cr.P.C. is attracted when the entirety of the offence is committed outside India, if part of the offence is committed in India, Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. may not apply. In Mumtaz Basha (supra), the Madras High Court held that the complainant and the accused had been residing in Dubai and the complaint regarding acts of cruelty alleged committed outside India. Since no previous sanction of the Central Government had been obtained under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate could not have taken the complaint on file. The said judgments are not applicable to the case on hand on the ground that there are specific allegations against the petitioners that when respondent No.2 return back to India, she came to know petitioner No.1 spreading false rumors about her character, defamed and also blackmailed her that he will leak the private videos and the said acts committed within the jurisdiction of the Miyapur Police Station, wherein respondent No.2 is residing.

14. It is relevant to mention that in Bhajan Lal v. State of Hariyana ((1992) supp (1) SCC 335), the Hon’ble Supreme Court delineated the limited scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings, holding that such power may be exercised only in exceptional cases where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose any offence, are inherently improbable, legally barred, or manifestly mala fide, while cautioning that the categories so enumerated are illustrative 3  and the power must be exercised sparingly.

15. The above said principles were reiterated in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and Others ((2021)19 SCC 401), wherein it was emphasized that the police have a statutory right and duty to investigate cognizable offences and that Courts should not interdict investigation at the threshold unless no cognizable offence is disclosed on a plain reading of the FIR; the FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia of all facts, and criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at their nascent stage. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose cognizable offences, and as the investigation is still in progress, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings at the threshold.

16. However, the entire allegations levelled in the complaint are taken at face value, this Court is of the view that the ingredients of Section 69 of the BNS are not attracted against petitioner No.2; and only an offence under Section 351(2) of the BNS is attracted and the said offence is punishable with imprisonment below seven years. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Investigating Officer has to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273) and Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another6, especially petitioner No.2 is a woman and aged about 55 years.

17. For the foregoing reasons as well as the precedent decisions, this Court is of the considered view that this case does not fall under the rarest of rare case to exercise the powers conferred under Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the proceedings in F.I.R. against the petitioners at this stage. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the reasons mentioned in paragraph No.16 (supra), the Investigating Officer is directed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the BNSS, and also the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra), insofar as against petitioner No.2/accused No.2.

18. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.