SC Hears K’taka Govt Plea Challenging Section 354 Removal for HD Revanna
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a plea filed by the Karnataka government challenging the high court order quashing the charge of outraging the modesty of a woman filed by JD(S) leader and former local aide against JD(S) leader and MLA HD Revanna under Section 354 of the IPC. A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran also issued notice to HD Revanna and asked his lawyer to file a counter-affidavit against the state government’s petition.
During the hearing, the bench asked the Karnataka government why it did not challenge the verdict despite the high court dropping the charges under Section 354 of the IPC and sought some discipline from the government.
The bench stated that domestic help revealed different allegations against father-son duo HD Revanna and Prajwal Revanna.
HD Revanna is the son of former prime minister HD Deve Gowda and father of jailed former MP Prajwal Revanna. Union minister HD Kumaraswamy is his younger brother.
The allegation of sexual harassment against HD Revanna came to light after multiple cases of rape and sexual abuse were registered against his son and former Hassan MP Prajawal Revanna.
One of the complainants in the Prajwal Revanna case has filed sexual harassment charges against HD Revanna.
Prajwal Revanna has already been convicted in one of the four cases filed against him.
The cases against Prajwal Revanna came to light ahead of the Lok Sabha polls on April 26, 2024, after pen drives containing obscene videos allegedly involving him were reportedly distributed in Hassan.
On November 19 last year, the high court quashed the charge of outraging the chastity of a woman (Section 354 IPC) against HD Revanna, but upheld the charge of sexual harassment under Section 354A of the IPC and directed a trial court to examine whether the delay in lodging the complaint could be condoned under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The apex court held that the contents of the complaint fell within the scope of Section 354A rather than the more serious charge under Section 354. He observed that it was compatible with the crime of sexual harassment within the scope of the article.
Revanna had approached the high court seeking to quash the FIR, alleging that the complaint was filed beyond the three-year limitation period applicable to crimes punishable with up to three years’ imprisonment.
The prosecution countered that the petition became invalid because the police had already filed an indictment and the trial court had received information.
The high court also noted that there were discrepancies between the complainant’s original version and the police report, especially in terms of allegations against HD Revanna’s son, who was named as the primary accused.
For HD Revanna, the high court had said that the charges should be framed only on the basis of the initial statement of the complainant supporting the Section 354A charge.
Since the offense under Section 354A attracts a maximum penalty of three years, the judge held that the complaint was prima facie barred by limitation under Section 468 of the CrPC.
Therefore, the matter was sent back to court.
Following the high court order, the trial court on December 29 last year discharged HD Revanna in a sexual harassment case registered in 2024.
The additional chief judge discharged HD Revanna from the case registered at Holenaraseepur town police station in Hassan district.
