Bengaluru Court Discharges MLA HD Revanna in Sexual Harassment Case

A Bengaluru court discharged Janata Dal (Secular) MLA HD Revanna from a sexual harassment case, ruling that the four-year delay in filing the complaint could not be condoned.

The order was passed by the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, KN Shivakumar, following directions from the Karnataka High Court, which had earlier remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration on the issue of limitation.

While hearing Revanna’s plea to quash the proceedings, the High Court had observed that since the maximum punishment under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is three years, the trial court was required to determine whether the delay could be condoned under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

In its order, the trial court held that the case was not fit for condonation of delay and declined to take cognisance of the alleged offence. As a result, HD Revanna was discharged from the charge of sexual harassment under Section 354A of the IPC.

The allegations against Revanna and his son, Prajwal Revanna, came to light after more than 2,900 videos allegedly depicting sexual abuse of multiple women surfaced on social media earlier this year.

An FIR was registered on April 28 at the Holenaraseepur town police station in Hassan district against both Prajwal Revanna and HD Revanna under several IPC provisions, including sexual harassment, stalking, criminal intimidation, and insulting the modesty of a woman. The complaint was filed by one of the alleged victims.

HD Revanna had faced two criminal cases -- one related to sexual assault allegations and another involving allegations of kidnapping. He was granted bail in both cases on May 13.

In his petition before the High Court, Revanna argued that the trial court was barred from taking cognisance of the offence under Section 468 of the CrPC, which prescribes a three-year limitation period for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to three years. While Section 473 allows courts to extend this period if the delay is adequately explained, the trial court ultimately ruled that no such extension was warranted in this case.

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.