Bengaluru court discharges HD Revanna from sexual harassment case

A Bengaluru court on Monday discharged Janata Dal (Secular) Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) HD Revanna from the sexual harassment case filed against him and his son, Prajwal Revanna.

While hearing Revanna's plea to quash the case against him, the Karnataka High Court had earlier remanded the matter to the trial court to consider whether the four-year delay in lodging the complaint could be condoned.

XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate KN Shivakumar held in the order passed today.

"This is not a fit case to condone the delay in lodging the complaint or initiation of prosecution in respect of the offence punishable U/Sec.354A of IPC alleged against accused No.1 U/Sec.473 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this court is declined to take cognizance of said offence punishable U/Sec.354A of IPC as against accused No.1. As such, the accused No.1 is discharged from the offence alleged against him in this case U/Sec.354A of IPC."

The sexual abuse allegations against Revanna and his son Prajwal had emerged after over 2,900 videos depicting the sexual assault of several women were circulated on social media.

On April 28, a first information report (FIR) was registered against Prajwal Revanna and HD Revanna under Sections 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 509 (insult to modesty of woman) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at the Holenaraseepur town police station, Hassan district. 

The criminal case was registered on a complaint filed by one of the victims.

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

In his quashing plea before the High Court, Revanna had contended that the trial court could not take cognisance of the offence in view of the bar under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That provision states that for offences punishable with imprisonment of one to three years, the limitation period is three years. However, Section 473 CrPC states that any court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained.

The High Court had held,

"As the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 354A of IPC is for a period of three years, it is essential to consider whether it is a fit case to extend the period of limitation or not as per Section 473 of Cr.P.C."

In view of this, the High Court sent the matter back to the trial court to consider afresh as to whether or not it is a fit case for condonation of delay.

Advocate G Arun appeared for Revanna.

Special Public Prosecutor Ashok Naik represented the State.